We are calling for funders to adopt more open and trusting practices that make life easier for those they fund.
Our Open and Trusting Steering Group meets twice a year, to:
Our thanks go to the membership:
Our strategic aims, size, and governance are very different. But we all believe that how we do it matters: who we reach, how we judge applications, the kind of funding we give and the relationships we make.
Commissioned perceptions survey 2022 Q1 of grant holders and organisations turned down. In light of feedback, updated and continue to update website e.g., new FAQs. Website includes a list of exclusions.
Working on further clarifying our priorities – interrogating our decisions at longlisting and shortlisting stages and recording our thinking.
New section on ?how we make decisions? planned for our website.
Details of all our grants are published through 360 Giving on Grant Nav
ABCT has an online application process and does initial sifting & assessment on the basis of a two-page application form, plus accounts and cashflow forecast. If the applicant is successful in going forward, they are not required to submit any further documents, but have a phone call.
We have updated details on the website to further clarify what we look for in funding applications and in reports, with the aim of reducing funder burden while continuing to provide the info we need.
ABCT provides unrestricted core funding whenever possible, recognizing the organisations we fund are expert in what they do, and trusting they know best how to use the funds to achieve their aims.
To reduce barriers in accessing funds we have introduced grants for non- registered charity structures to increase accessibility e.g., CICs, and companies limited by guarantee with an asset lock. We are looking to develop this further.
ABCT publishes quarterly deadlines a year in advance, with details on when decisions will be taken. This timetable does not change.
Agility enhanced by delegated authority up to £10k, with applications turned around within 1-2 weeks as necessary. Flexibility to make emergency grants in-between meetings
Work to decrease time it takes to get back to people when declined.
ABCT contacts declined applicants with a letter providing an overall reason for declination and offers a feedback phone call with a staff member.
Info provided on feedback calls improving through ongoing work to interrogate reasons for decisions, and documenting these (1 above).
Success rates for applications are published on our website, and new section on how we make decisions planned (1 above).
ABCT provide unrestricted funding through all three of our funding streams. In 2021-2022 77% of our funding was unrestricted core funding.
Restricted grants were either i) when requested by the applicant because the restriction would help them, ii) when we have to restrict because of the organisation?s legal structure, or iii) when just one component of the organisation?s work fitted within one of ABCT?s priorities.
Delegated authority enables small grants (bespoke funder + and other ad hoc grants) to meet needs flexibly. Through ?special initiatives stream can fund different structures and new and untested models of work.
ABCT aims to be a relational funder, with contact with applicants and grant holders positive and purposeful.
For grant holders, the Grants Manager name and contact details are included in the grant offer letter. We are responsive and want to be led by the applicant in terms of how much contact they would like with us.
Planning an anonymous feedback option on our website.
We believe relationships and trust are so important ? another principle which lies at the heart of the work we aspire to do.
ABCT has a light touch approach to reporting. Grant holders need to submit no more than two pages, can be less. We are happy to accept monitoring reports prepared for other funders. If due to timing, an organization is applying again at the end of a grant, the monitoring report and next application can be combined.
Recently made this even clearer on our website.
We will work with our steering group ? including representatives from the frontline, to draft guidance which is as clear and simple as possible. We welcome feedback and learning which helps us to continually improve the way we do things.
If information is available elsewhere, i.e. from the Charity Commission or if we already hold it, we wont ask for it again and we will work towards streamlining our processes to ensure we only capture information we need.
We will hold extra meetings to reduce delay, and will prioritise applicants in the most financial need taking as flexible an approach as we can.
Whenever a new fund is launched, we hold a ?Meet the Funder? session which gives prospective applicants an opportunity to find out more about the fund and ask any questions. If it becomes clear from any queries that our guidance notes or application process is not as clear as it could be we immediately adapt them to make them clearer.
All our template application forms have been reviewed. Any new application forms are drafted to include only questions where we know we will use the response. We do not ask for information we can find by looking at the Charity Commission or Companies House websites.
We do not ask for detailed activity plans as we believe the organisations that we fund have the correct skills, knowledge and experience to be able to make their own decisions.
Our decision-making processes are developed to be relevant for each grant to enable us to give a decision as quickly as possible in each case. We take into account any requirements from the fund source but eliminate any unnecessary processes and potential delaying factors.
We publish details of grants that have been awarded on our website. We always give the opportunity for an applicant to have a one-to-one discussion with us to discuss any feedback or reasons for rejection in more detail.
Where the source of funding permits, we contribute to the essential running costs of an organisation. We stress to applicants that we are aware that circumstances may change throughout the lifetime of a grant and encourage grant recipients to discuss any changes with us so that we can agree on any adaptations to the grant that may be required.
We always offer the support of a development worker throughout the lifetime of a grant and beyond. This ensures that organisations are aware of the support available to them – not only for issues that may arise during the delivery of the grant activities but also with their development as an organisation.
Our monitoring requirements are tailored to the level of grants awarded and are as light-touch as possible. We only ask questions where we know we will use the information provided, explaining how we will use it – such as helping us to influence future funding decisions, as well as celebrate the great things that organisations are doing.
We will regularly review our funding priorities to be clear about what we fund, and we will be open and transparent about all our requirements and exclusions.
? We use a two-stage process.
? We aim to support a high percentage of applications at stage 2, so stage 1 is all about the key questions that most strongly influence our funding decisions.
? We take responsibility for checking information on applicants from publicly held records where information is not supplied (e.g. Charity Commission, Companies House).
? We recognise that organisations have been severely affected by the pandemic and will approach applications in a positive and sympathetic manner.
? We will review and discuss with our Trustees ?what good looks like’ in relation to reserve levels, diversity of funding and financial projections so that decisions are taken in light of this information.
? We will be honest and open in our communications with applicants.
? We publish our timetables on our website and make clear how long decision-making takes.
? We aim to make an initial response to applications within 14 working days, either asking for more information or indicating we are unable to proceed with an application.
? We aim to keep organisations informed at each stage of the process and will communicate issues impacting an application’s progress.
? We will always give open, honest and detailed feedback when requested.
? We analyse the success rate and reasons for rejection annually and will review how we can be more transparent.
? We will commit to reviewing how we communicate the reasons for rejection with applicants.
? We will review options for data-sharing.
The Foundation has always been committed to supporting the essential operating costs of an organisation or group, not just direct project costs. Every year a high percentage of our funding goes towards the core costs of organisations.
The Foundation is realistic and clear about its relationship with organisations. We encourage organisations to raise concerns or issues which may affect the delivery of their work or spending of the grant. The Foundation commits to being flexible with organisations to enable the grant to be spent.
The Foundation understands that any reporting should be consummate with the level of grant awarded. Our grant funding is modest; therefore, we require only a short report and accounts at the end of the grant or to enable the release of the next instalment. This is communicated with all applicants.
We operate a timely and efficient application process, so that grantees can start projects as quickly as possible after applying.
We provide guidance to potential grantees throughout the application process, via our website, webinars and one-to-one meetings, to ensure that applications are eligible and appropriate for our funds.
We publish our application form online so applicants can understand what?s involved right from the start.
Our application process is streamlined, we avoid repetitive and unnecessary questions, and provide sensible word counts to ensure applications are concise and are not overly onerous to complete.
We understand that projects can change due to unforeseen circumstances. We offer an open conversation with our grantees throughout the lifetime of their grant, to ensure that they are able to make the best use of the funding for their beneficiaries.
We are keen to support a percentage of grantees? core costs as we know how challenging it can be for organisations to get support for them.
We understand that different organisations, particularly smaller or younger organisations, face different barriers to making a successful application, and we consider that in our assessment process.
We have an ?open door? relationship with our grantees, and can make decisions quickly if projects need to change.
We have an agile online application process to make applying as easy as possible, and publish clear and realistic timetables for applications.
We give bespoke feedback to unsuccessful applicants and we celebrate our grantees and their projects on our website.
We offer support to unsuccessful applicants to improve their applications, if there is potential for a successful reapplication.
We consider equality, diversity and inclusion at every stage of our application process, and have a diverse group of assessment panelists, who reflect our mission and values.
We act on feedback from every round, and are planning a stakeholder survey in our second year as a grantmaker.
We maintain a constant conversation with our grantees, and are open to extending or modifying projects, as we understand that projects may need to adapt to changing circumstances.
We offer a percentage of funding to cover organisations? core costs.
We provide templates for reporting but are happy for grantees to use their own if they prefer. We accept applications and reports in a variety of formats, including video and audio, as well as writing.
We have a dedicated single point of contact for our grantees and are available to talk at any time.
We keep in regular contact with all our stakeholders and grantees, through one-to-one meetings and emails, and all relevant organisations are invited to join our network for information and best practice sharing.
We keep our application and evaluation process quick and simple, recognising that small grants should require less time to administrate.
We are realistic about the outcomes that can be achieved with smaller grants and are flexible about how organisations report on them.
Our team is available to respond to enquiries, assess essential eligibility and provide application guidance and support for our programmes. We strongly encourage potential applicants to contact us to ascertain their fundamental eligibility before completing an application. We will publish programme guides and application documents that are independently reviewed for clarity and consistency.
We will only ask questions of applicants that help us to ascertain the heritage value, potential social benefits (including environmental impact), organisational capacity and financial/commercial position (where relevant) of projects. These answers help us to make funding decisions. Some questions may also generate data we are required to report back to our funders, and we will make clear to applicants where this is the case.
As a primarily early-stage grant funder and loan provider, we have for many years operated an explicit policy of embracing a reasonable degree of risk. We seek, through providing advice, to help mitigate the key risks we perceive in projects we support and plan within our own projections for a degree of failure. We are committed to learning from projects that don?t work out as planned within our sector and more broadly.
Our grant application deadlines, and decision and payment timetables are published on our website. We are committed to sticking to both decision-making and payment timetables as far as possible. In line with our own Scheme of Delegation, we consider smaller grant applications on a monthly rolling basis, which allows us to confirm a grant decision within six weeks of application deadlines. Larger grants and loans are awarded on a rolling quarterly basis. Where essential to capitalise on limited-term opportunities, we will aim to expedite decisions. Additional funding opportunities that may arise will be communicated and decided on as rapidly as possible.
We aim to provide honest, thoughtful and pragmatic feedback to unsuccessful applicants and offer follow-up conversations in the hope that projects will find greater success in future funding rounds or with other funders. We participate in 360 Giving and publish lists of awards, as well as common reasons for rejection on our website.
We are primarily a project-level funder ? this is inherent in the nature of funding we receive from our funders ? but we appreciate that organisations need stability to deliver on complex multi-year projects. We will therefore be responsive to changing project needs and flexible about amendments to Approved Purposes and terms, in the spirit of the grants and loans we award. This includes considering extending grant periods or negotiating loan repayment holidays. We are able to maximise our flexibility when organisations communicate clearly and openly with us at all stages. Where appropriate and agreed with our funders, we will consider contributions to essential operating costs, capacity building and external fees for sector memberships.
We are transparent and open to discussion from the start around expectations on timescales and the commitment involved. Where applicants or projects we support feel we have been insufficiently clear or responsive to need, the contact details of our Senior Management Team are available online.
We have rationalised the evaluation of all our programmes, including limiting the frequency and length of data collection exercises, and ensuring that only necessary data is requested for reporting and claiming of grants and loans. Where we are required by our own funders to gather reporting data, we will make this clear to our grant and loan holders.
We are redesigning our online application streams and forms to re-open in Spring 2023; potentially to have a separate multi-year unrestricted / core option which will have reduced completion time to about 5 minutes.
And also the Trustees will seek to say no quicker to those we are not able to fund, and not undertake further enquiries of an applicant where there isn’t a budget to support funding.
When our online application system re-opens (Spring 2023), we will amend our website to provide information on number of applicants, and number of those applicants receiving funding.
We will review and amend the messaging on our website as we seek to re-open online applications in Spring 2023.
We will be open and transparent about all our requirements and any exclusions.
We will have open and honest discussions about a charity?s eligibility if they contact us before applying.
We will enable charities to find out whether they are eligible to apply through the eligibility checker and Q&A sections on our website.
We will share dates of grant programmes and criteria in advance of programmes opening.
We will only ask relevant questions ? we will only collect information that we must have to make funding decisions.
We will test our application forms thoroughly to make sure our questions are clear and do not overlap.
We will ask relevant questions in our eligibility checker to enable charities to establish if they are eligible for our grant programmes.
We will accept our share of risk ? we will be realistic about how much assurance applicants can give us when applying for unrestricted funding and will trust the charity to use our funding appropriately.
We will rigorously check OSCR and companies house records on applications to ensure charities are eligible to apply.
We will act with urgency ? we will seek to work at a pace that meets the needs of charities.
We will publish and adhere to our timetables.
We will make our decisions as quickly as possible.
We will be transparent about our decisions ? we will give feedback to as many unsuccessful applicants as possible.
We will have clear eligibility criteria on our website, so charities know what we do and don?t fund.
We will enable charities to respond flexibly to changing priorities and needs by providing unrestricted funding in the majority of our grant programmes.
We will remain dedicated to providing grants for core costs such as salaries, rent and utility bills.
We will continue to consider grant extension requests and re-purposing requests.
We will share dates of grant programmes and criteria in advance of programmes opening.
We will ensure that our contact is positive and purposeful, including with those charities that we decline.
We will ensure that grant terms and conditions and reporting requirements are set out clearly to manage expectations.
We will ensure that our formal reporting requirements are well understood, proportionate and meaningful.
We will review and act on any feedback we receive about our processes.
We make the aims and/or themes of a fund explicit, with clear exclusion criteria set out in supporting documentation and the application form itself. We review responses after every grant cycle to identify common areas of misunderstanding or lack of clarity and work to reduce this in the next fund.
As our participatory grant making processes have several rounds of decision-making, we inform applicants as soon as their application fails to proceed rather than wait until the end.
All of our application processes are co-designed by residents of our community so the questions asked are those they feel is relevant. As much as possible, we include an explanation on our application forms about why we are asking certain questions.
We are testing out ways to move to a leaner application process, including using 360Giving’s API to allow us to conduct due diligence w/o needing to ask certain questions.
We have the participatory grant making process recorded on our risk register and have mitigations in place to ensure our trustees feel confident in supporting this way of working. This includes accepting that communities may make decisions which would differ from those that staff or trustees would make. We hold orientation sessions with resident decision-makers before they see any applications to ensure they understand the risk appetite of the charity and their fellow decision-makers. Additionally, we do not ask for itemised budget breakdowns as we trust organisations to understand their financial needs more than us.
We plan grant timelines in advance and feel confident that we can stick to our commitments. As we work in a participatory way with residents, their decision-making is more difficult to plan around but we ensure applicants understand this and always give at least one week notice of any deadline changes.
As we increase our grant making we are developing a better understanding of our timeline and will continue to update our timelines accordingly.
We publish learning reports and blog posts detailing the data from applicants. We are a publisher on 360Giving as of July 2024 and will be uploading grant data as we process them.
As we are a small team, we only offer individual feedback to applicants that make it into the final but will be publishing the most common reasons for rejection in a specific fund on our social media.
We encourage applicants to ask for core costs and build this into their ask and our grant agreements have flexibility built into them. As our grant decisions are made by residents, it is similarly not for BD Giving staff to unilaterally accept any requested changes so we ask decision-makers to outline any red lines and work on the assumption we can flexible if the general purpose of the grant remains.
Going forward, we are increasing the % of unrestricted grants we distribute over the next 2 years.
Our grant agreements have a template but we encourage applicants to modify terms to better suit their needs (e.g. we ask for images of projects if possible but organisations working with vulnerable groups can remove this). We try and keep the bulk of communication with grantees light touch, favouring conversations over written updates with a simple 4 point structure: 1. How are things going? 2. Is there anything you’d like to celebrate? 3. Is there anything that has surprised you? 4. Is there anything we can be doing to ensure the grant is successful?
We jointly agree reporting requirements with grantees and clearly explain why we need certain data.
We have recently updated our monitoring, evaluation, and learning framework and will be sharing this with grantees so they understand how their work fits into our BD Giving.
We are open to learning and are starting to introduce regular reviews of applications that have been declined to understand why they were declined. By doing this we hope to ensure we communicate our funding in a clear manner. We work with a forum of funders to share our knowledge and understanding of applicants in a positive manner to encourage strong applications and to leverage funds for the applicant from other sources.
We have a clear decision-making framework and tailor the questions in the application form to ensure that they match the decision-making framework. We use publicly available information (eg Charity Commission website and applicants website) to collate relevant information to support our due diligence process wherever possible.
We seek to be proportionate and flexible, and in doing so, acknowledge that as a funder we have to accept risk to enable applicants to do their work/activities – they are the expert, not us.
We have a funding review panel which meets at least once per month to consider applications. Once applications are awarded we aim to issue the funds within a week. We could be more transparent about this and state it in our publications.
We aim to provide feedback to applicants where funding has been declined and are willing to consider a revised application. We do this through place-based working to build relationships with the key players and stakeholders. We openly publish our grants data on 360Giving.
We encourage applicants to apply for what they need and not what they think we will fund. We have moved away from only funding project costs and encourage applicants to apply for funding for ‘core costs’ (i.e. overheads etc) and multi-year funding.
We encourage applicants to engage with us through place-based working. When we make a grant we communicate the terms clearly.
We take a proportionate approach to our application process and only ask questions relevant to the decision-making process. Our recently-implemented monitoring and reporting requirements are light touch, but meaningful.
We have an initial enquiry form which takes only moments to complete and enables us to rapidly advise organisations about whether their ideas are within our scope. We also encourage people to pick up the phone to discuss their proposals before submitting anything to us.
We publish our priorities on our website and review them if it becomes clear from the enquiries we receive that we haven?t got our guidance clear enough.
We encourage grant holders to use material they already have (Board papers, reports to other funders etc.) to report on progress.
Drop the requirement for mid year reporting for long standing partners.
We only ask questions in our forms where we use the information provided.
We quickly change the wording on our forms if it becomes clear that we have asked a question clumsily or confusingly.
We do not ask organisations to submit documents that are publicly available (e.g. accounts from the Charity Commission website).
Our Board?s risk appetite is strong for social justice impact. The more far-reaching the impact will be felt, the greater our willingness to risk failure.
Better understand the risk to impact relationship – we accept greater risk for deeper or wider impact.
We have executive delegated powers for decisions on smaller grants, effectively allowing us to make decisions between Board meetings. We have now extended delegations significantly to speed up decision making.
We provide feedback to all unsuccessful applicants.
We publish our grants online and on 360Giving.
We publish our social investments online.
We encourage our partners to disclose barriers to progress and vary the grant accordingly to make the most impactful use of it.
Many of our grants are to key long-term partners and therefore core or quasi core (such as the Chief Executive?s salary). Where our grants are restricted, this is usually for work as part of a collaborative strategy to achieve collective goals (i.e. a piece of a bigger jigsaw).
During the pandemic we have amended timeframes and purposes on request and made sure all grant holders are aware of this.
One of our organisational mantras is that we should always leave an organisation stronger than when we got involved with it.
We believe that reporting should be proportionate and appropriate. A commissioned piece of academic work, a core grant for core purposes and a project grant for one piece of work therefore require different and sensitive approaches to balance: a) the least additional work for them with b) the most useful learning, dissemination and influencing.
#NAME?
#NAME?
#NAME?
-we are proportionate with our due diligence and can move money quickly in an emergency (e.g. Ukraine in 2 days).
#NAME?
#NAME?
-we are launching our first ever funding strategy, outlining exactly what we want to achieve with the sector, following a participatory strategy process.
-hope to hold some webinars this year to communicate our work to new audiences too.
-We try to be clear and open about our plans, and aim not to give false impressions
-We focus on building an open relationship with our grantees- which involves both of us learning and communicating concerns
-Our grant agreement lays out the steps of the formal aspects of the grant
-We have conversations where possible, to make the relationship more personal and to help foster good relationships
-Maintain professional boundaries and outline when we feel we are not the best person to help them with an issue
#NAME?
We work through an online CRM system to ensure we register any groups funded and reduce need to resubmit information we already hold. We advise groups before application where possible to make sure they are applying for the right things.
We have been part of an IMPACT cohort of Community Foundation’s reviewing what we ask and why, and have reviewed our own monitoring to reduce it to questions which we need answered to make a difference.
We have launched and are evaluating our first individual giving funds and are learning from this to do more with risk.
We have a system that can fast-track applications to a decision within as little as 3 weeks (at times even a few days), especially for those from minoritised communities as part of our commitment to equity.
We actively encourage groups and individuals to approach us first to share their ideas for funding so we can help them get the best fit possible. We stay in contact with our groups through their grant cycle and beyond through networking groups and keeping assigned grantmakers to build relationships.
We follow up all applications for support with a call to ensure we fully understand, allowing groups to edit and add to applications to ensure we get the right fit for our funding programmes.
We always feedback on unsuccessful applications and invite groups to work with us to revise their ideas to resubmit.
We ask for information in our processes which are always proportionate to the scale of funding, size of groups or level of expertise available.
We clearly state our funding priorities and eligibility criteria on our website and have a clear Expression of Interest process, which has helped to reduce the number of ineligible organisations submitting applications to us. We share as much information as possible with prospective applicants, including detailed funding guidelines, webinars and 1:1 calls for each grant programme, to help ensure that organisations understand our requirements and exclusions. We endeavour to reflect on misunderstandings during the application process to make future funding programmes clearer.
We review our application forms before every funding programme and test them with sector partners to ensure they remain succinct and relevant. We commit to keeping our application forms under review and seeking feedback from applicants to ensure that our approach is continually improving. We only ask applicants for additional information at the shortlisting stage.
We believe that one of our strengths is our ability to accept risk – funding innovative work, pilot projects, smaller charities and work that is co-produced with communities where outcomes are not always clear from the start. We have reviewed and improved our due diligence processes and continue to review how we explain our approach to risk, to help potential applicants better understand this aspect of our decision-making. Our decision making processes include funding recommendations from young people and our charity partners.
We have continued to listen to and respond to the needs of the sector, providing additional support to our charity partners during times of crisis. We are clear about our decision-making timelines and make applicants aware of any changes. We seek to make decisions as quickly as possible being mindful of resourcing and the required review and approval process.
We aim to provide useful feedback to all unsuccessful applicants. Our grant-giving data is publicly available via our website and 360 Giving, and we will continue to explore ways to make further information available about our grant-making, including success rates, diversity trends and organisational size.
We have a core cost commitment – a strategic commitment to increase the proportion of unrestricted and core funding we are providing, in line with what we know charities need. We are committed to funding a proportion of unrestricted core costs through all of our grants and continue to explore ways in which we can provide unrestricted funding to our charity partners. We work collaboratively with all our partners and respond flexibly to their changing needs around project plans and timelines.
We are a relationship-based funder, and each organisation we fund has a dedicated Partnerships Manager. When we make a grant, we jointly agree the expectations from the relationship between us. We aim for a culture of partnership working, which creates the conditions for trust to be built on both sides.
We have reduced the reporting requirements for our smaller grants, and have committed to reviewing our monitoring and evaluation approach to ensure that our requirements are proportionate across the board. The purpose of reporting is to encourage reflection for our partners and an opportunity for them to openly share their successes and challenges. It also supports our own learning journey to become a more impactful funder.
We provide clear information about the priorities of our funding programmes and give examples of the kind of projects we have funded. Applicants can identify if the fund is suitable for them.
We continually review our application forms and monitoring forms. This is so that the questions asked are relevant and appropriate for assessment processes.
We will fund new and small groups. The Bolton CVS Funding and Development Teams work closely together to support new and emerging groups. We may make a payment in two parts if we are aware of a risk.
We provide a timetable on each funding round. Applicants know when they can expect to hear the outcome and if successful, when they can expect payment. Most of our funds aim for a 6-8 week turnaround from deadline to notification. We have started to run some funds on a rolling basis and aim to get decisions to applicants as quickly as we can.
We provide information about the decision-making process and the specific priorities of each fund. We publish on our website a list of awards made.
We are flexible and will work with grantees if they need to extend or change how the grant is used. We take into account that circumstances can change and we work collaboratively with groups in order to help them deliver high quality projects.
We publish clear funding guidelines on our website and provide clear and constructive feedback to unsuccessful applicants. We actively support groups in their development of funding related skills and knowledge.
We do this in terms of ensuring the questions we ask, the due diligence checks we undertake and the grant monitoring is proportionate to the funding level.
Clear criteria, strong guidance and training for decision-making panel.
Question and challenge what we’re asking and why – if the answer won’t make a difference, why ask?
Enable people to answer the questions in any order, so they can tell their story their way.
We provide guidance on recommended length of answers, but have no restrictive word counts.
Actively risk averse – we embrace and encourage risk-taking by applicants and decision panel.
We hold separate ‘Wrap Around’ funds to enable us to support grantees with their projects, to enable people to take risks in a supported way.
We always stick to our timelines; we get ££’s to people as quickly and simply as possible.
Using easy English, always offering additional support to applicants, and enabling application by written, video or audio formats.
Providing support, access adjustments, understanding everyone as an individual and responding accordingly.
Clear, friendly, welcoming, timely comms – always. Providing feedback, being kind.
Actively reject unreasonable and overly complex processes for (e.g.) £500 grants. All our funding pots have proportionate processes in relation to the ££’s available or the commitment requested.
Our website provides clear information on our funding priorities and exclusions and we have a short quiz to enable organisations to quickly check their eligibility before completing an application form. We also offer the opportunity to discuss any queries with our Grants Officer before applying. These measures have resulted in a reduction in applications which are outside of our criteria.
We have a 2 stage process, collecting more detailed information such as safeguarding policies from applicants once they have been shortlisted as a potential fit with our criteria and priorities rather than at the beginning of the process. We regularly review our application forms to ensure that we only collect information that we use to make funding decisions or improve our practice. We have continued to use a streamlined reapplication form developed during the Covid-19 pandemic and feedback on it from grantees has been positive.
We aim to be realistic about the context within which applicants and grantees are working and how much assurance they can give us regarding their plans. We have also provided emergency support when grantees have experienced challenging situations including financial difficulties, accepting the associated level of risk. During our strategic review we will be looking at our approach to risk management and seeking to ensure it is proportionate and reasonable in relation to the context within which organisations are operating and the support we may provide.
We are transparent about the time it takes us to make funding decisions, and have made some improvements to our processes to speed up our shortlisting. We have made emergency grants quickly, and now also make decisions on reapplications within 8 weeks. We will consider ways in which we can further speed up our decision making process for new applicants during our strategic review.
We offer feedback to all applicants rejected at the second stage of our assessment process. We plan to publish the most common reasons for rejection at the first stage of our assessment process on our website during 2023. We publish all our grants as open source data and make them available on the 360 Giving website, enabling applicants to see the type of organisations / projects that have been awarded funding.
Trustees usually award unrestricted funding. Where restricted grants are made, we seek to keep these as flexible as possible e.g. towards a broad area of work rather than a specific salaried post or activity cost. We have provided uplifts to grants in response to changing needs and agreed to grantees moving funding across financial years where this has been helpful to them. We also aim to be as flexible as possible in respect of monitoring and re-application deadlines and encourage grantees to get in touch with us if they think that a deadline is unrealistic for them to achieve or if they find they are unable to meet it due to other urgent priorities
Our website includes information about our reporting requirements and approach to learning, and this is reconfirmed in our offer letters to successful applicants. We seek positive and meaningful relationships with grantees, and are sensitive to the impact of any requests for additional contact with us. We regularly spend time sharing relevant links to other support or funding opportunities with our grantees, which they have told us they find useful.
We have continued to use a streamlined monitoring form developed during the Covid-19 pandemic. We have sought to run additional support grants alongside existing funding to avoid any duplication of reporting. We will be reviewing our approach to reporting as part of our strategic review to ensure that it is proportionate, meaningful and reasonable in relation to the context within which organisations are operating as well as the level and type of funding we provide.
We will publish, and share via social media & our website, a simple guide outlining timescales to help applicants plan when to submit grant applications. We will publish a step-by-step guide explaining eligibility and the process of applying for a grant. We will take part in ‘meet the funder’ workshops and seminars in partnership with local infrastructure bodies and councils.
We will offer two proportionate application processes. A simpler process for small grants (£3,499 and under) and one for large grants (£3,500 and over). We will increase the threshold for large grants and therefore simplify more applications. Last year we increased the threshold from £2,499 to £3,499. We will increase the average grant size from £2,500 to £4,000 by 2022.
We have removed rules about the maximum number of grants a grantee can concurrently hold. We have increased the number of unrestricted, core funding grants awarded.
We publish all fund application timescales. We publish a simple guide to these timescales, and wherever possible, we stick to these commitments. For our Covid response fund and future urgent response funding, we developed a new process that enabled applications to be turned around in less than 2 weeks.
We will publish a summary of the proportion of successful applications and a breakdown of reasons for rejection on our website and in our annual reports. We publish grants data via 360 Giving.
We are flexible about changes to project timescales and budget variances, especially in light of the pandemic. We are increasing the number & value of multi-year grant awards and increasing the average value of grants awarded.
When we award a grant, expectations for both the grantee and us will be clearly set out in mutually agreed terms and conditions. We will visit larger funded projects via a volunteer visitor programme to observe and discuss the project. This will provide the grantee with an opportunity to safely raise challenges and learning in their grant.
We clearly set out expectations for reporting and monitoring. We are constantly reviewing the level of reporting required and will focus on making the requirements proportionate to the grant size and risk. We will introduce further opportunities for automated reminders requesting reports and develop our online processes to accept more and simpler reporting online.
Our funding opportunities are co-produced, which means that providers are involved throughout the process and can decide if the funding is suitable before applying. Frequency of grant-management meetings are proportionate to the value of the grant.
Before each funding round we review the section of our application form that is focused on governance and finance ? ensuring that we only ask for relevant and up to date information. We keep (for an agreed amount of time) organisations? policies and accounts for future funding rounds.
We support organisations that are new to our network and offer feedback on draft applications. We don?t require detailed activity plans and milestones. Proposals can be broad, and we generally only monitor the impact of funded activity not its delivery.
We publish clear timetables for funding and never extend deadlines. Our decision-making process is prompt and designed around Local Authority meeting schedules.
We report on our decisions (both negative and positive) and these are published electronically. We give detailed feedback to both successful and unsuccessful applicants in writing and in person (if requested). The ratios of allocated budget as a proportion of ask is published.
Our funding is all restricted, but we enable flexibility through our grant management. Regular meetings and reporting allow us to adapt grant commitments to changing need. This might mean focussing on a different client group or geography during the funding period.
All providers have an induction meeting and regular follow ups. We also use a variety of channels to communicate including our website, social media and quarterly providers? forums which are open to projects that we don?t currently fund. We regularly review our reporting template and aim to minimise the burden of reporting on grantees (where appropriate we require one report even when there multiple funding streams).
We issue grant-management guidance and hold regular information sessions to explain our requirements. Grant-funded organisations are given free access to our management information system, Helix, which they can utilise for other funding streams. Where we are managing funding on behalf of bodies which require specific reporting, we aim to make this as light touch as possible.
We have introduced introduction calls with small groups of prospective grantees, running between 3 and 5 every funding round. It is an opportunity to (virtually) meet staff and other organisations working in a similar area. We explain, in detail, everything about our funding ? the process, the criteria, the strategy, the funding amount, etc.
We also ask for a three-to-four sentence ?elevator pitch? to make sure we are providing every organisation with an honest reflection about how our criteria fit with their work.
Our proposal form is relatively short and we are meeting (in person or virtually) with the staff delivering the work to make sure we can ask what we need if it?s not already covered in the proposal. We have a Grants Committee with rotating membership, depending on expertise, to make sure staff recommendations are reviewed by an expert panel ? and we are working hard to make lived experience, as well as children?s voices, a core element.
We are working with other funders to rethink reserves positions and have changed our own policy to more of an ?it depends? stance ? we have funded organisations with three weeks of reserves and some with twelve months. The key question is always what makes sense in the context of the organisation and whether the organisation has active plans to get to where they want to be.
Our timetable is clearly set out via the introductory calls, regular reminders, and our platforms (social media/the website). We try to be as understanding as possible when life comes in between and will go out of our way where this is fair to other prospective grantees. Decisions on finalised proposals are reached within a month.
Success rates are published in our annual report. We provide individualised feedback on every proposal, including offers to work with our associates where organisations find it helpful, e.g. to rework a delivery plan or new volunteering scheme. We allow resubmissions at subsequent funding rounds.
We are moving towards funding that is as unrestricted as possible. Given our funding focus, this means any and all expenditure relating to work with Early Years children ? whether core, strategic or project-based.
We emphasise that we don?t expect reporting for accountability but are interested in supporting organisational self-improvement. Our goal is to have an open and honest relationship that is focused on support, whether things are going well or ? even more importantly ? when they are not. This is a journey, and we are just a few steps down the road, so we look forward to learning from our grantees and peers.
Our terms and conditions are clear and concise, and our priority for evaluation is organisational improvement. We have worked with the Dartington Service Design Lab and co-productively with our grantees to review our practices. We are currently working on a new way of reporting in 2021. We are flexible and understanding with reporting deadlines and always offer a personal conversation to hear how everyone is doing. Micro-grants we awarded during the pandemic did not have any reporting requirement.
All applications begin with a telephone call to ensure the charity fits within the CiS funding criteria. The process continues with a visit to the charity or project and only then will the organisation be invited to apply.
All funding information is on the CiS website, including the application form.
Our application form is specifically designed to be short, straightforward, and not onerous for applicants. We are always available to work through the application form with the charity if help is needed.
We use the Charity Commission for accounts information.
We keep our criteria for funding simple and explicit. We are also aware that things do not always go to plan when working with grassroots organisations who are working with vulnerable groups and encourage charities to keep in touch and reach out when there are changes.
We have three rounds of funding each year and inform successful applicants within the week of trustee decision meetings. Funding is granted within the month unless there has been a mutual agreement otherwise.
Feedback tends to come at the early stage of applying to ensure that there is a good fit when the application moves forward. Our website is open and transparent as to who we have funded in the past, and what for. The Trustees are closely involved in the grant-making process.
Being a smaller funder gives us the ability to be flexible and open when it comes to charities re-directing their funding should they need to. This past year has shown that now more than ever funders need to respond to changing needs. Applications for core funding are encouraged.
A good relationship with the charity is important to us and we are keen to understand their own needs.
In our successful award letter, the list of reporting requirements are stated: no more than a two-page report towards the end of the grant, successful aspects of the year, number of participants, and what could have worked better.
Simplifying application and due diligence processes to reduce the burden on our charity delivery partners. We are committed to exploring ways to make our funding more accessible and streamlined, drawing on feedback from charities about their experiences.
Continuously learning and adapting our approach based on the insights and experiences of the organisations we support. We are committed to being responsive to the evolving needs of the communities we serve.
Building trusting relationships with partners based on open communication, transparency, and a shared commitment to improving outcomes for children and young people. We see our role as a collaborative partner.
Providing unrestricted funding to give our delivery partners the stability and resources they need to achieve lasting impact. We recognize that social change takes time and are committed to supporting our partners over the long-term.
Amplifying the voices and perspectives of children and young people, including through research as well as by supporting youth-led initiatives and ensuring their voices help to shape our work as well as inform the wider public on the challenges they experience.
We will continue to publish our funding criteria, guidelines for completing our application form and FAQs clearly on our website.
We update our webpages regularly with information about how long applications take to assess.
We regularly review how we explain the different priority areas open for funding at any point in time.
We are in the process of changing our impact and learning forms so they are less onerous for funded organisations.
We are about to launch a short online welcome session for new funded organisations which will set out what we expect from them and enable them to ask questions at the start of their funding.
We will review our application form in 2023 to make sure we are only collecting information useful to us and our funded organisations. If we already have some information from applicants, we will import this where our data systems allow.
We will continue to use a shortened impact and learning form to continue work that we are already funding.
We will work with our funding team to make sure all assessors understand and assess information provided consistently. We will review this at least quarterly.
We will share how we assess risk and what we ask applicants to provide on our website which is soon to be updated. Our definition of risk will extend beyond financial risk.
We will clearly communicate to applicants the purpose of our Financial Assessment ? what we require, why we require it and how it will be used.
We will continue to hold grant decision-making meetings every 2 months and use an appropriate scheme of delegation to allow decisions on smaller grants to be taken more quickly in between meetings.
We aim to make decisions on our small grants programme within 12 weeks of the receipt of a fully completed application.
Our data analyst provides regular reports about the amount of time organisations spend on the application, assessment and monitoring processes and we take any steps required to make this efficient, reasonable and fair.
We will invite all unsuccessful applicants to telephone us for feedback.
We will hold large grant decision-making meetings in public and publish our grant-making data fortnightly through 360Giving.
We will be open on our new website as to what the expectations are for new funded organisations.
We will explore further options to award core funding in 2023.
We recognise the expertise of the funded organisation and work in partnership to ensure that projects can be flexible across the lifetime of the grant. This includes making sure all funded organisations can speak to a Funding Manager with the authority to approve reasonable adjustments to active grants.
We will give funded organisations the option to complete their impact and learning reports on the phone.
When an grant is given, the funding manager will explain why funding was?awarded, the nature of?the relationship and what to expect from CBT.
We have updated our grant impact and learning processes to make sure we are only collecting information useful to us and our funding partners.
We are committed to continuing to use an eligibility quiz, asking relevant questions on our application form and only asking for additional information when necessary.
We are expanding our pre-application outreach activities, particularly aimed at smaller organisations, to provide a space to ask questions prior to applying.
We will continue to regularly review both how we use application forms and the questions we ask to make sure the process is proportionate and ensure we are asking appropriate and relevant questions.
Under our small grants programme in particular we will be looking at “what fundable looks like” when it comes to financial security of micro sized and new organisations and how we can apply more flexibility in this area.
We will be looking at how we can provide constructive feedback to unsuccessful applicants whether individually or at aggregated level. As we publish our new strategy in 2023, we will update our eligibility criteria on our website and be clear as to what exclusions apply.
We will continue to be as flexible as possible with grantees undertaking capital projects. This may mean taking a pragmatic approach to funded projects, for example, allowing changes due to recent inflation.
Under our new Proactive initiatives, we will agree jointly with our grantees the expectation around our relationship and reporting requirements and continue to check in and agree changes in this as the relationship progresses.
In 2023, we will be looking at our post grant monitoring process (currently suspended whilst we do so) with the aim of gathering information and learnings that our useful to us as well as the organisation’s we support. This will be proportionate to grant size and project.
We are keen to work in a relational way and encourage potential applicants to get in touch with us to discuss their ideas. For our open Health Grants programmes, we have an eligibility quiz at the start of our online application form. We publish detailed guidelines for each of our programmes, with clear funding priorities. For our Church Grants programme, we offer grants surgeries to discuss proposals, and we have introduced an online core information sheet, so that core information is only collected once, with churches updating this as required.
We regularly review our application materials to ensure that we only ask for the information needed as part of the assessment process. For our multi-year Health Grants, we use a two-stage application process, asking for additional information for those being assessed at the second stage.
We recognise the considerable pressure which many organisations are facing as a result of Covid-19, including on their reserves and financial resilience. We have taken this into account in assessing funding applications.
We publish and stick to our funding timetables. Funding decisions are communicated quickly to applicant organisations.
We give initial feedback to all unsuccessful applicants about the reason(s) for the declination. Where possible, we will also give more detailed feedback if requested.
We provide funding for overheads as part of our project and multi-year grants, although our charitable objects make unrestricted core funding difficult. We are happy to consider changes to a grant (for example, for its purpose or the timescale within which it can be delivered).
As a place-based funder, we work in a relational way and encourage organisations to contact us to discuss any challenges they are facing. Our grant agreements set out expectations of the relationship between us and the funded organisation.
Our reporting processes vary according to the size of the grant. We will accept joint reporting with other funders. For one of our individual grants fund, which is delivered through partner organisations, we ask for more detailed monitoring information. In this instance, partner organisations are given additional funding in recognition of the time that it takes to administer and report for these grants.
Continue to regularly review fund criteria to ensure clarity. Review rejected applications, picking up trends and addressing this in published material and training sessions. Refresh ‘disqualifying’ questions asked before access to online application form is given. Consult with groups/grantees via our community platform.
Invite groups to request feedback on unsuccessful applications and make this clear on our website and published material. Offer constructive feedback on how applications could be improved. Consult with groups/grantees via our community platform.
Grants Ambassador continues to operate throughout Kent, meeting regularly with groups, attending forums and offering advice, information and training on appropriate applications to the trust.
Continual review of contracts to ensure they reflect needs of both parties.
Regular use of community platform to engage, consult and provide news, information and updates for grantees.
Continue refining monitoring requirements in consultation with grantees via our Community Platform.
Surface and incorporate key applicant feedback into how we make and manage investments. We publish our strategy and ensure that our eligibility criteria and the guidance for each of our funding programmes are available on our website. We will deploy an eligibility checker to help people understand more clearly whether they are eligible or not. Ensure each funding programme will be accompanied by clearly (and in advance) advertised and accessible Q&A sessions to allow prospective applicants to ask any queries they might have. All Q&As will be captured and recorded in a live FAQs document available on the funding call website.
Reform our two-stage application process to reduce/streamline the first stage, surfacing only the key information and essential documents required to make a decision, reducing the amount of time applicants are spending applying. Remove the need for detailed MEL (Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning) plan at the application stage – only funded partners will be asked to submit this. Remove the need for a detailed budget at the application stage- only funded partners will be asked to submit this. Only ask for full/detailed organisational info at Stage 2.
Continue with the current level of light touch due diligence ? seeing this as an opportunity to surface the information needed to provide support around safeguarding, financial management and governance ? particularly in light of covid19 related challenges around fundraising, which needs a more supportive approach to risk management. We will place focus on organisational resilience over organisational sustainability. This includes accepting that organisations might not have multi-year funding or diversified revenue streams guaranteed. Their reserves are there to be used, and that they have multiple scenario contingency plans in place to navigate turbulent operational and funding environments. We will be exploring self-assessment of risk by funded partners to ascertain a clearer picture of the operating context.
We will clearly publish the timelines for all funding programmes, including application windows, assessment windows and decision-making timelines. We will provide enough contingency within our scheduling to absorb challenges, and thus, reducing the need to change timelines. We will reduce the total amount of time taken from advertising an opportunity to making an investment.
We already have a feedback process in place where we let unsuccessful applicants know why they haven?t been successful. We will commit to providing detailed feedback to those organisations that made it to the assessment stage of the process. We will publish funding decisions for each call in the same way we do information for a call launch. Alongside this, we will publish call-specific information such as common reasons why applications were not funded and trends across applications. We commit to carrying out a review of our grantmaking process to understand the diversity, equity and inclusiveness of our funding portfolio. We will continue to publish our grant information on 360 Giving and IATI (International Aid Transparency Initiative).
We will extend a flexible funding offer to all UK funded partners at least until the end of 2021, allowing organisations to repurpose their funding (as long as compliant with their own charitable governance). We will continue to allow all funded partners to revise their budget and MEL plans each year to respond to changes and realities on the ground. We will continue signalling our support of core costs and full cost recovery, reinforcing this at multiple stages of the application stage.
We will continue to pay first instalments upfront at the beginning of our relationship. We notify successful applicants by phone and/or email before a formal offer letter is sent out. We will reiterate in our communication with funded partners that they are those closest to the issues, and we?ll acknowledge that expertise. We’ll deliver less formal start-up workshops that include a greater focus on relationship building and connections within cohorts of funded partners. We will test out a new approach in our funding overview form to clarify expectations around the relationship between them and Comic Relief ? giving space to the partner to make suggestions and pick from a range of options for how they want the relationship to be managed. We will be very clear and upfront in the call information so funded partners are aware of the source of funding, and instances where we don?t have full flexibility and cannot meet some of these commitments ? e.g. in cases of contracts or co-funding partnerships.
We will continue to utilise three reporting levels, which are proportionate to the funding request, programme complexity and/or co-funder requirements. We will further streamline these reporting levels to remove unnecessary questions where possible. We will prioritise quality over quantity and clearly communicate what data we need and why/how we use it. We will continue using lighter touch annual reporting for all grantees who take up the offer of flexible funding during the covid19 pandemic.
We will not waste their time ? we will explain our funding priorities clearly; we will be open and transparent about all our requirements and exclusions.
Examples of what this looks like in practice:
? After each round of funding, we review all rejected applications, looking for ?rules? that we hadn?t identified or made clear.
? All our published application documents are independently copy edited for clarity and consistency.
CWH commitment: CWH will clearly state all timescales, requirements and support available for all funding opportunities. We want our application forms to be concise and to the point, with accompanying relevant information succinct and useful, that enables applicants to judge whether or not an application merits their time and effort.
We will only ask relevant questions ? we will only collect information that we must have to make funding decisions; we will test our application forms rigorously to make sure our questions are clear and do not overlap.
Examples of what this looks like in practice:
? We use a 2 stage process. We aim to support 75% of applications at stage 2, so stage 1 is all about the key questions that most strongly influence our funding decisions.
? We take responsibility for compiling information on applicants from publicly held records (e.g. accounts from the Charity Commission).
CWH commitment: Our engagement with applicants will be limited to asking questions that will help us make funding decisions ? we will explain why we are asking those questions where needed, and will be happy to talk through the process and the application with any interested organisations before they apply.
We will accept our share of risk ? we will be realistic about how much assurance applicants can reasonably give us; we will clearly explain how we assess risk when we make our funding decisions.
Examples of what this looks like in practice:
? In the light of Covid-19, we are reviewing ?what good looks like? in relation to, e.g. reserve levels; diversity of funding; financial projections. We will share this with applicants.
? We don?t require detailed activity plans. We trust organisations to make their own operational decisions.
CWH commitment: We exist to address new ideas, overlooked injustices and support those organisations tackling vital issues who need help to develop an idea. As such, we have risk built into our profile and will actively look for new and untested ideas.
We will act with urgency ? we will seek to work at a pace that meets the needs of applicants; we will publish and stick to our timetables; we will make our decisions as quickly as possible.
Examples of what this looks like in practice:
? We make all decisions about small grants within 30 days of receiving an application.
? If we have problems meeting our timetables, we get extra help rather than giving applicants less time or changing their deadlines.
CWH commitment: We will be clear with our applicants on all deadlines and timescales, and will ensure all stages are as efficient as possible. When working with successful applicants, we want to ensure an efficient feasibility study process but we will also be mindful that different organisations have different resources and move at a different pace, and we will work to balance these factors.
We will be transparent about our decisions ? we will give feedback; we will analyse and publish success rates and reasons for rejection; we will share our data.
Examples of what this looks like in practice:
? We try to think creatively about how and when to give useful feedback to all unsuccessful applicants ? we never just say ?we had more applications than we could fund?.
? We publish details of the reasons for rejection at each stage of our application process.
CWH commitment: All applicants, successful and unsuccessful, will be informed in a timely fashion. We have always made sure feedback is available to all unsuccessful applicants upon request ? usually in the form of a meeting to discuss this, as opposed to brief written feedback.
We will enable them to respond flexibly to changing priorities and needs ? we will give unrestricted funding; if we can?t (or are a specialist funder), we will make our funding as flexible as possible.
Examples of what this looks like in practice:
? Our trustees are committed to moving 90% of our annual spend to unrestricted grants within three years.
? We contribute towards the essential operating costs of an organisation, not just to direct project costs.
CWH commitment: Our grant funding (for research or feasibility studies) will enable partner organisation to carry out their work unrestricted and in a manner which suits them. We want to understand what partner organisations want from the programme and enable them to achieve this in the way we fund and subsequently support them.
NB: this commitment is likely aimed at different types of grant funding to those we offer.
We will be clear about our relationship from the start ? we will be realistic about time commitments; we will ensure that our contact is positive and purposeful.
Examples of what this looks like in practice:
? When we make a grant, we jointly agree the expectations for the relationship between us.
? We are working on ways for funded organisations to safely raise challenges in their grant relationship with us.
CWH commitment: Our timings, expectations, roles and responsibilities will be clear and up front. We are not a passive funder, and want to work with partner organisations to help them achieve their aims, which in turn, we hope, will help us achieve ours. We will explain why we are asking the questions we are asking if required.
We will commit to light-touch reporting ? we will ensure that our formal reporting requirements are well understood, proportionate and meaningful.
Examples of what this looks like in practice:
? We explain why we have awarded a grant and then jointly agree what grant reporting will work for us both.
? We use a simple ?tick box? form to deal with all reports for accountability purposes.
CWH commitment: We want to work with partner organisations to deliver outputs that support their work and aims as much as ours, and will not ask for data, feedback or reporting which is onerous or unnecessary.
We aim to make our application process as easy as possible and only collate data from monitoring reports that we need and use. We have 2 funding rounds per year and try to keep the turnaround time as short as possible.
We only ask the questions we need to make decisions about the funding allocation and we review the application process annually. We are currently analysing data to produce an impact and we plan a review after to check that all the questions in our evaluation framework are relevant and needed.
We are exploring the feasibility of making the community element of our grant unrestricted. I believe the nature of our funding makes this a relatively low risk move. We have well established programme (22 years) which has already transitioned from the original 100% vouching to being more flexible.
We are a supportive funder with hands on training and capacity building support for grantees. We hope that more flexible funding will allow communities to be flexibility and react to the evolving needs of their communities
We are a very approachable funder – as a voluntary organisation with over 2500 members across NI we are grounded in the community.
We are very open about the requirements of our programme and give training and 1-2-1 visits to ensure groups understand what is expected of them, we engage with them throughout the year so we know if and when there are issues or problems and can help.
Our programme is already fairly flexible but we want to make it more flexible and create unrestricted funding or core grant costs which organisations can use how they need.
I think we already do this but are always striving for improvement – we have a new communication person so are currently working on key messages which will help us with communication.
Our current evaluation framework is extensive and although it is vital to the overall programme I think we can refine the length of our questionnaires to be more proportionate. We are committed to doing this over the next 6 months – we have also secured a dormant accounts grant to enhance our digital infrastructure which we hope will enable us to produce a new system and move away from MS Access.
We streamlined our grant processes during covid, to ensure that we can offer people and organisations support at the earliest stage. If they do not meet our criteria for funding we will let them know at the earliest possible opportunity. However, we will look for other available schemes to support them. If they have small issues that they need to overcome we will help them to overcome their problems and support them to apply for funding.
We have refined our application forms and systems to ask questions that are specific to the funding that people are requesting. Prior to our changes the questions were very general and sometimes confusing. Now they are tailored to a specific scheme, in a way which will help us to streamline our decision making process, and make it easier for applicants to talk about what they are doing.
We have made changes to our overall grants policy to implement a new risk strategy, and increase our risk appetite. Although we still need to make sure funding is spent as appropriately as possible, we are now balancing that with accepting an increased share of risk, particularly if we want to drive innovative projects, or those that work with a hard to reach cohort of people.
During covid we reducing our assessment times to 48 hours. That is unsustainable to carry through in the long-term, but we have managed to reduce most decisions to being made within a month. There are some exceptions where we are unable to gather enough evidence to support applications, but the majority are now based on a quick turnaround.
Our grants criteria and overall grant programme criteria is published on our website. All application forms contain links to the criteria. Our main grant guidance page explains how our grant process works, how long decisions take, the sort of things we ask, and why we ask them. All of this information is available prior to anyone submitting an application.
Since covid we have been more flexible in our approach to grant monitoring. Acknowledging that sometimes delays occur that are beyond the control of the grantee, our policies now have a default of extension to grant terms. We will allow the reallocation of funds within the project, and allow expenditure on core costs, capital costs and ongoing project costs. Where we are acting on behalf of someone else, or a private funder, we will act as an intermediary to ensure that the grantee is understood and does not feel overly pressured to agree to something, or deliver something, that they are not able to do.
All of our communications with grant holders, or potential grant holders, is now specific and direct. We tailor our communications to them specifically, and so will only send them information that is relevant to them. We make sure our communications are in line with their communication preferences. Where we have a broader communications strategy, or where general promotion is undertaken, we make sure that enough information is given at the start to reduce the likelihood of someone entering a process before finding out that it is not applicable to them. Every two years we ask for a funding survey to be completed to help to steer our grant giving and the needs expressed by our grantees, and potential grantees.
The number of questions on an application form and the supporting information requested are now proportionate to the overall value of the grant that is being applied for. We will not ask for excessive information or documentation for a small or low level grant. Monitoring of grant awards has also been tailored so that it is more proportionate. We always ask for case studies, and need to ask for proof of financial spend, but the questions asked and the terminology used are shifted dependent on the size of the grant awarded, and the size and experience of the organisation competing the monitoring.
Two-stage application process ? Expression of Interest to avoid unnecessary applications.
One application – many donor funds.
Published Eligibility document.
Funding Surgeries & Q&A Sessions.
Use publicly available information from the Charity Commission instead of asking for copies of Accounts where possible.
Notify rejected grant seekers as soon as possible.
Rapid turnaround small grants via Area Funds.
Commitment to respond to EOI within 5 working days.
Publish and stick to a fixed date for notification of outcomes.
Two stage process – EOI. We maintain a high success rate for full applications to donor rounds.
Shortened EOI form.
Updated applications forms following feedback from grant seekers to ensure they are given the best opportunity to describe their funding need.
Introduced themed rounds to enable focused questions in applications and monitoring forms.
Engage with VCFS groups to review application forms.
To do: Add in relevant questions to enable grant seekers to indicate if they are user lead.
We will make sure risk measures (due diligence) are proportionate to the size of the grant and the size of the organisation.
Use a score sheet to record risk equitably.
Accept that not every project will achieve what it set out to and are willing to allow grantees to learn from that and share their learning with us.
Put forward medium and high-risk applications if the project’s impact justifies it – with full disclosure to the donor.
Fund CIC grant seekers where they are delivering a positive impact.
Removed questions from our application form about future funding.
Understand the full context surrounding projects, for example, the negative effects of the pandemic on the financial position of many organisations.
Develop the small grants programme through the Area Funds with light touch assessment.
Try to fund where we previously would have hesitated, for example, groups with low reserves and supporting new organisations via an umbrella organisation.
Commit to awarding grants to organisations which are new to CFS – KPI 20% of organisations funded are new to CFS.
Ask donors for decisions by a fixed date.
Publish deadlines to provide good advance notice and stick to published deadlines.
Commit to providing outcomes within 4 months.
Respond to emerging needs by implementing funding programmes quickly.
Respond to queries in a timely manner.
Continuous review of unintended consequences e.g. Move to themed round, changes to eligibility.
To do: Implement a process to manage rolling programmes with low application rates.
Publish success rates of applications.
Provide reasons for not inviting an application following EOI.
Publish all awards on 360giving.
Updates to grant seekers on where they are in the process.
Publish an example copy of our application form on the website.
Provide feedback to unsuccessful applicants.
We are committed to contributing towards the essential operating costs of an organisation, not just to direct project costs. Our guidelines reflect where grants can be used for any aspect of the cost to deliver the project, including overheads.
Work from the assumption that we will say yes to change requests if at all possible subject to donor approval.
Work with umbrella organisations to offer grants to unincorporated organisations.
Assessment interviews – talk rather than relying on forms alone.
Offer End of Grant interviews as an alternative to forms.
Commit to moving 10% of our grantmaking to Multiyear funding.
To do:
Create a simple Change Request form to speed the process.
Proactively ask donors for feedback on their funding decisions to support grant seekers.
Regular email bulletins.
Clear communication about process and expectations e.g. – we have your application; this is what happens next.
Outreach activity.
Feedback opportunities on application and monitoring forms.
Anonymous surveys to gather feedback on our processes.
Direct conversations with well-known grant holders to seek feedback.
Our grant offer emails define reporting requirements, and time commitments, and provide contact details for help throughout the life of the grant should grant holders require it.
To do:
Improve the website to provide better support to grant seekers at the beginning of their journey.
Formalise learning capture process.
“Light touch assessment for recent grantees.
Light touch monitoring forms.
Reporting requirements are shared with grant holders at award and are accessible to them immediately.
Offer End of Grant interviews as an alternative to forms.
To do: Develop more flexible reporting forms when IT permits
? We will develop clear and focused guidance and criteria, with specific examples of the types of projects and organisations we aim to support. This will prevent ineligible applicants and projects. We will publish details of the types of organisations and projects we cannot support.
? We will continue to have clear fund guidance and eligibility criteria on our website, and utilise the eligibility checklist pre-application, so that applicants do not waste time applying for funds that they may not be eligible for.
? We will encourage pre-application support calls to advise on criteria and to ensure applicants and projects are eligible for a particular fund. For each fund, and round, we will review and update criteria that may not have been clear. We will also review fund processes and update guidance on processes, where lack of clarity is identified.
? We will provide detailed feedback on rejections and ineligibility, to enable future eligible applications as much as possible.
? We will continue to adapt our application forms, and ensure we only ask relevant questions, and seek relevant supporting documentation to the fund criteria and to enable us to make final decisions.
? All applications questions and lengths will reflect the level of the award offered, and the complexity of the projects. For smaller awards we will have a simple and straightforward application form, and criteria.
? We will support applicants that have provided supporting documentation within the last three months for other funds, to enable them not to have to resubmit the same documentation again.
? Where possible, we will review public documentation such as the Charity Commission website, and our own salesforce database, to seek further information if required. We will not make applications ineligible if we do not immediately have access to this information, without checking other public sources.
? When assessing, we will only take into account responses to questions related to the key criteria, and we will not be overly bureaucratic around how we interpret these responses, where appropriate.
? When managing and awarding funding on behalf of other funders we will share our learning and expertise and use best practice.
? Where possible, and in particular with our own unrestricted funding, we will not limit applications from organisations, with high income levels, or low income levels, or high or low levels of reserves.
? We will not have unreasonable due diligence checks, and we will give as much flexibility as we can around eligible costs, and times for spend. We will ask for simple project plans in the application, and a simple indication of how the project meets the fund criteria. We will not be overly bureaucratic about evidence and paperwork required to show impact, and our interpretation of this.
? Our assessment strategy will be based on the values of trust, and flexibility.
? We will make decisions no later than within 30 days of receipt of application, for those funds where dates are set by us and not others.
? We will make use of online decision-making panels, and approval systems to have regular decisions made and issued for applicants.
? We will use external assessment support, and set up ad hoc panels to enable fast turnaround of applications, particularly those that are providing small grants.
? We will avail of in-house staff panels where possible, to enable prompt responses. Post-panel decisions will continue to be done during a panel meeting, or immediately thereafter.
? Decisions will be issued within 48 hours of final decisions being agreed. Terms and conditions will be accepted by email and processed for payments within two weeks of issuing letters of offer.
? We will ensure that a clear reason for rejection is added to the email of rejection.
? We will provide advice and FAQs on our website to raise awareness of common mistakes in applications.
? We will offer telephone calls following rejections, if required, to ensure the applicant is clear as to why they have been rejected.
? We will publish our complaints process on our website, with clear details around our decision-making process.
? Our Trustees are committed to making our unrestricted resources as flexible as possible within the next financial year. This will include flexibility to support core costs, and to offer unrestricted funding.
? We will encourage our donors and fundholders, both new and existing, to support operational, as well as project costs, and to develop fund criteria that
supports flexibility.
? We will regularly survey and listen to the VCSE organisations we fund and we ask them to contribute to strategic decisions.
? We will commit to working in partnership with all our grantees, and to support and trust them to manage the funding as easily as possible.
? Our terms and conditions will be clear, and the grantee will sign up to these conditions prior to payment of awards. The conditions will be as fair and flexible as possible, and will have limited restrictions around spend, and monitoring, where appropriate.
? We will not develop fund criteria and terms where grantees are required to meet unrealistic time challenges around spend.
? We will encourage our donors and fundholders to enable us to administer their funds with the same minimal restrictions. Any restrictions for funds that we do not have flexibility with will be clear and concise prior to application, and prior to acceptance of any awards.
? We will encourage grantees to raise any challenges as quickly as possible with us, and ensure that we are as supportive and flexible as we can be, to support them in any challenges.
? We will develop fund leads for all our funds, to enable grantees to each of our funds to have a main point of contact, and to address any
issues they may have.
? We will update our website accordingly.
? We will commit to asking projects to only complete one end of grant report for all of our own funds, and for any that we have the flexibility with on behalf of other donors and fundholders.
? For any projects awarded under £1,000 we will simply ask them to provide a short update on their project and the impact of this support. Where possible,
we will collate this information from a simple telephone call. We will appoint a fund lead to carry out this monitoring, and will not allocate online monitoring for these funded projects.
? We will only request relevant information from our monitoring reports. Our end of grant reports will be as simple and as clear as possible, and we will not ask each grantee to provide evidence of all spend, other than for those projects awarded over £10,000.
? We will collate qualitative information as much as possible through our grantee network and through our communications department. We will only verify those projects awarded funding of over £10,000. Where appropriate, we will be flexible with dates for completion of end of grant reports.
? We will only add alerts to our system for those grantees who have not abided by agreed terms and conditions, following reasonable contact to enable addressing of any issues. We will not take into account any previous issues with monitoring and reporting of awards, without giving the grantee the opportunity to rectify within a reasonable timeframe.
? We ensure our strategic priorities are shared prior to application.
? We only launch funding that links closely to our strategic priorities.
? We provide guidance for open funding programmes in clear, jargon-free, English.
? When launching a fund, we run webinars and provide FAQs.
? We are available for questions and clarifications for all funding enquiries throughout the application process.
? Whenever possible, we have an eligibility checker for organisations to check their eligibility prior to making a full application.
? We use a two-stage application process so that ineligible applicants don’t waste time applying.
? When applicants move to the second stage, we liaise with them directly about any queries so that these can be addressed.
? When working with strategic partners on solicited applications, we keep open communication with our trustees to ensure that proposals are only progressed when they are likely to succeed.
? We keep our questions to the minimum needed to make a decision.
? We act on feedback and insight from current and former partners to ensure that our application processes are regularly reviewed, straightforward and proportionate.
? Where possible, we work in a participatory way to co-develop the application questions. We do this by working with a group of young decision makers and other subject matter experts.
? We are flexible in our approach to applications, enabling organisations to submit information in a way that is accessible to them and allows them to submit information in their own format.
? We prioritise DEI principles in all interactions with partners, ensuring that any initiatives we undertake are inclusive, accessible and clearly communicated.
? We work with our trustees to agree an approach to risk that ensures we fund a range of organisations. This includes funding innovative and high risk projects through our Carbon Innovation Fund and funding smaller organisations with an income less than £250,000 through our Future Communities Fund.
? We have constant dialogue between the foundation team and trustees to ensure that our activities align with our risk appetite.
? As a relational funder that builds strong relationships with partners, we manage and mitigate risk by creating a culture of openness, transparency and support.
? We accept that even when things don?t go to plan, this represents a learning opportunity rather than ?failure?. We are committed to learning and have learning contracts in place to support this. We share learnings both internally and externally.
? We ensure that any due diligence is proportionate and we only ask for information that is required. We work with partners to support them if any challenges or risks are identified.
? In our investments, we continue to support our partners with interest-free loans to community organisations, accepting a meaningful share of risk alongside our partners.
? We seek to work at a pace that is in line with the needs of the applicants.
? When announcing a fund, we publish our timelines and stick to them wherever possible (recognising that sometimes things happen that affect our timelines, particularly when delivering participatory approaches to decision making). We are transparent about any changes to timelines and communicate these clearly.
? We have strong relationships and regular contact with our partners and are responsive to the changing external context in which they operate. For example, we provided cost of living increases to grants and also recently made an additional grant to an organisation for their asylum service to address an urgent need.
? We are flexible and, where applicable, adjust grant payments or loan repayment dates to reflect the changing needs of our partners.
? We involve people from the communities we work with in decisions about how to use our funds. We aim to complete our journey towards becoming a participatory grantmaker by the end of our current strategic cycle.
? We worked in conjunction with 100 young people to co-create our Future Communities vision that would guide our new strategy.
? We are currently increasing the number of young people involved in decision-making as well as expanding the range of work in which they are involved.
? We publish our approach to funding and strategy on our website.
? Where possible, we are open about the chances of success when we launch a fund. Funds are as targeted as possible to reduce the likelihood of high volumes of applications.
? We publish reasons for rejection and give more detailed feedback wherever possible.
? We create and share blogs about which organisations have received funding. We list all our partners on our website and in our annual report.
? We share all of our funding data via 360 Giving and will continue to do so.
? We are gathering data for the DEI Data Standard to better understand the organisations that we fund. We also take part, whenever possible, in the Funders for Racial Equality (FREA) Racial Justice Audit.
? Through our close relationships with partners, we remain open and responsive to changing needs.
? We provide unrestricted, multi-year funding, such as through our Future Communities diverse leaders funding. This makes it possible for organisations to flexibly allocate funds to where they are needed most.
? When developing new funding programmes, we look for ways to make funding unrestricted and long-term.
? When working in partnership with other funders and delivery partners, we set out our expectations clearly at the beginning of the partnership (for example working with young people and using participatory approaches to decision making) and are not afraid to move away if we feel our approaches cannot align.
? We act as advocates in the voluntary sector for multi-year, unrestricted funding and seek to influence other funders and stakeholders to fund in flexible and responsive ways. We share our learnings of funding in this way by, for example, participating in webinars, podcasts, publishing blogs and commissioning research reports.
? As a relational funder, we invest considerable time in building strong partnerships.
? At the beginning of a partnership, we discuss with a partner how we would like to work together. We continue to adapt this throughout the partnership. For example, for our strategic grants, we tailor the frequency of catch up meetings based on the changing needs of the funded organisation.
? We are conscious of potential power dynamics between funder and partner. For instance, we review the language used in our communications and at all stages of the partnership. We base our level of involvement and support in the organisation’s activities on their invitation, such as taking part in steering or advisory boards.
? We trust our partners to know how best to deliver positive change in their area of expertise.
? We view funding relationships as flexible, symbiotic relationships whereby both funder and partner learn, adapt and create impact together.
? We are co-developing a funder plus model with multiple stakeholders to provide partners access to an enhanced range of support.
? We adhere to DEI principles at all times and champion the importance of this to our partners, for example through signposting to trustee diversity resources
? Funding via our Future Communities Fund has supported organisations working with diverse groups of young people, delivering opportunities to be involved in governance and leadership.
? We are committed to proportionate reporting.
? Where practical, we involve our partners and young decision makers right from the start, to co-design the theory of change, learning goals, set learning questions and develop reporting processes.
? We always seek to make reporting light touch and accessible, co-designing the approach, or reusing other reports or agreeing shared approaches with other funders.
? We ground our learning and evaluation in DEI, making it more equity-focused, culturally responsive and participatory.
? We share learnings internally and externally. For example, in agreement with partners, we share stories and learnings, to leverage their work, such as on social media, through our blogs, website or impact report.
We will continue to make sure that application guidelines and priorities are written in plain English and easy read formats. And ask people every year if we have got it right.
We will continue to make sure that the team is available and happy to discuss any queries or questions about any of the funding programmes Corra runs.
We will offer application information in different formats, for example a short video is available for the Henry Duncan Grants criteria.
Whenever appropriate to do so, we will offer bespoke support to applicants (e.g. completing the form for a disabled applicant) and explore relevant formats (e.g. alternative languages).
We are exploring the possibilities of short video application
forms on some of our funding programmes (currently being tested as part of the Promise Partnership).
We will continue to conduct an annual customer satisfaction survey and publish the findings, highlighting what changes we have made to forms and processes.
We will continue to ensure the information asked for in application forms is proportionate to the size of the grant.
When delivering funds on behalf of others, we will discuss good practice in relation to the content of application forms, and make recommendations.
We will make sure risk measures are proportionate to the size of the grant. We no longer ask for detailed financial or governance questions on small grant application forms.
We will conclude the reviewing of our Risk Policy and publish it on our website.
We have worked with our finance team to develop an alternative payment method for small groups that do not have a bank account.
We will continue to work to a rolling calendar of activity to ensure efficiency and publish the timelines for all funding programmes.
Where decisions are out of our control (managing funds on behalf of others), we will continue to commit to working to agree timelines that are in the best interest of prospective applicants.
We will aim to give a decision within four weeks for applicants seeking less than £2,000.
We will continue to provide tailored individual feedback on the majority of funding programmes.
We will continue to publish our grant information on 360Giving.
We will continue to publish an annual impact report that includes application and grant analysis.
We will commit to carrying out more detailed analysis on the diversity and equity of grant distribution and to publishing this.
We publish the findings from our annual applicants and grantholders experience survey including actions taken from feedback received.
All Henry Duncan organisational grants offer unrestricted, multi-year funding.
We will not restrict funding to a specific item. If project funds are requested, we will be clear that the grant can be used for any aspect of the cost to deliver the project, including overheads.
We will aim to offer unrestricted grants in the majority of our funding programmes within the next 5 years.
We will aim to build relationships based on respect and trust.
We will recognise organisational expertise and will not interfere.
We will continue to regularly asks applicants about their needs and offer support they would find helpful.
We will continue to review grant offer letters to ensure all grantholders are aware of reporting requirements, type of relationship, time commitment and support available.
Wherever possible, we will accept reports produced for other funders.
We will aim to provide optional reporting templates that are proportionate to the size of the grant.
We will make sure that reporting templates are written in plain English, and whenever possible offer tick box options for monitoring and accountability purposes.
Where possible we will aim to reduce the frequency of reporting.
We will make sure all our application guidelines and priorities are written in plain English and easy read formats. The criteria are clear, and applicants can check their eligibility through our FAQs sections, or seek advice via our telephone helpline or funding surgeries. We will review our reasons for rejecting applications and will use these to ensure our published criteria and exclusions are transparent and up to date.
We will only collect information that we need to make funding decisions; we will test our application forms rigorously to make sure our questions are clear and do not overlap. We will continue to ensure the information asked for in application forms is proportionate to the size of the grant. When delivering funds on behalf of others, we will discuss good practice in relation to the content of application forms, and make recommendations. We will ask every applicant about the application process, its ease of use or any potential barriers they feel have impeded their progress.
We will make sure risk measures are proportionate to the size of the grant and the size of the organisation, by talking with them, and managing expectations. We remain committed to support groups and grants that require a ?light touch?. We recognise that the pandemic has affected the sustainability or financial stability of many organisations, and will seek to support and fund those whose financial position might ordinarily put them outside of consideration. We will always strive to support impactful new approaches, new groups, and new ideas. We will strike a balance between helping applicants to develop these and making it safe for us to fund.
For those programmes we manage on behalf of donors, we will continue to work to a rolling calendar of activity and publish the timelines on our website. We will respond promptly to applicant queries. Where able, we will aim to give a decision within six weeks for applicants to our main grant programmes, and up to two weeks for grants less than £2,000.
We will continue to provide tailored individual feedback on the majority of funding programmes where we can. We will continue to publish an annual impact report that will include application and grant analysis. We will include in this our progress in meeting our chosen Sustainable Development Goals. We also commit to carrying out more detailed analysis on grant distribution and developing case studies to evidence this. We will also continue to publish our grant information on 360Giving and make our grant making available to a wider audience.
We are committed to provide unrestricted funds whenever possible thorough our own funding programmes (we have less flexibility with those we manage for other funders) and we contribute towards the essential operating costs of an organisation, not just to direct project costs. Our guidelines will reflect where grants can be used for any aspect of the cost to deliver the project, including overheads.
Our grant offer letters to grant holders will agree reporting requirements, time commitments, and provide contact details for help throughout the life of the grant should applicants require it. We will continue to ask applicants about their needs and offer support they would find helpful, which on occasion may result in supported applications. We will always recognise organisational expertise, and so build relationships with applicants based on respect and trust. We are committed to being an approachable funder and will encourage applicants to contact us is they have any concerns about the delivery of their project, or are required to change/adapt their wok to varying circumstances. We will describe what we do with the information we obtain from funded organisations.
We will ensure that our reporting requirements are proportionate to the size of grant but allow the applicant to show the impact of their project on individuals if needed. We will provide applicants with access to their monitoring report so that they are aware of the requirements at the end of their project.
Making ourselves available to have conversations about all our grant programmes so groups have as much information as possible about their likelihood of success.
Reviewing our forms (in 2023) to ensure we are only asking for information we will use.
Thinking about how we use information.
Asking questions which help groups to develop their own approach to making applications – do they have the right information for us but also for other funders?
Continue to think about the kinds of groups we support, both in terms of which communities we are working with but also the structure of funded organisations.
Using our Make It Happen fund to support individuals not in a constituted group to make change happen in their communities.
Continue to work with our board to have them delegate decision making where appropriate, in order for us to respond more quickly to need.
Continue to work with our board to have them delegate decision making where appropriate, in order for us to respond more quickly to need.
Where we can, to make the most of the funding opportunities that come to us via Islington Giving in particular.
Listening to the needs of local groups as they respond to changing circumstances for their users – how can we best support organisations to do this well?
Provide feedback to all applicants who request it
Be clear about the size of our funds, the number and size of awards we think we will make, and the criteria we are using.
Share all the learning we produce, both through our own channels but also with any other groups impacted.
Listen to the needs and circumstances of groups and be flexible in how we respond, particularly where change is required.
Understand when reporting is hard and be mindful of the stresses involved for small groups in particular in meeting deadlines. Give people good notice of all deadlines and if things go wrong, be understanding of this.
Making ourselves available to have conversations about all our grant programmes so groups have as much information as possible about their likelihood of success.
Be clear about the size of our funds, the number and size of awards we think we will make, and the criteria we are using.
Be clear about the size of our funds, the number and size of awards we think we will make, and the criteria we are using.
Be clearer internally about why we are asking for information and whether we need it both in applications and in monitoring.
Work to design application processes that are proportionate to the amount being awarded and the groups applying.
Work with our board to develop more designated authority to award smaller grants.
We screen applicants for eligibility early on in the process, and reject and redirect to alternative sources of funding as quickly as possible. We close schemes early if we are heavily oversubscribed. We have reviewed the clarity of our guidance, and continue to fine-tune.
We aim to introduce electronic signatures for grant agreements. We are piloting live briefing sessions for new schemes, to answer queries in person. We continue to explore ways to make our processes more inclusive and accessible to everyone.
We use bespoke application forms and guidance documents for each grant scheme, depending on what information is needed, and test these prior to launch for clarity, language, etc.
We will explain more carefully why we are asking for information, and will aim to be clear and comprehensive enough in what we ask for not to have to go back to applicants for additional information.
We are working with trustees to clarify our approach to capital and building work, and our guidance on safeguarding. We will continue our work to explain more clearly to applicants how we assess risk.
We are developing plans for unrestricted grantmaking.
We will maintain our commitment to regular grant rounds, with agile turnaround. We will pilot new methods for decision-making and payments, to ensure speedy process does not compromise the quality of decisions.
We will publish analysis of our applications on our website, along with examples of applications that were rejected for differing reasons, to help guide applicants. We will continue to give feedback to unsuccessful applicants.
We will undertake to explain how we make decisions for each grant scheme.
We have adapted our interim communications to help open up communication with grantholders, should situations have changed. We are aware of the need to balance flexibility with fairness.
We continue to take a range of steps to encourage frank communication, and supportive challenge. We regularly seek feedback from applicants on how successful we are in this.
We will continue to build ways to consult with stakeholders to inform programme development and priorities.
Where it is in our gift to do so, we aim for reporting to be an opportunity for mutually beneficial reflection. We tell grantholders in advance what reporting will be required, and we ensure this is relevant and proportionate.
We will continue our use of telephone conversations as an alternative monitoring tool, and will explore outcomes-based reporting as part of unrestricted funding pilots.
We are explicit in what we will and wont fund so applicants know if the call is suitable for them. After each funding round we debrief and consider what we can improve on and what went well. Our future documentation is then revised accordingly.
We only collect the information needed to process the application. We have a two stage application process that is proportionate to the size of award available.
We accept that not all projects go according to plan and we work with our grantees when issues arise to find the most suitable solution.
We ensure that there is a timely response to enquiries and that our funding calls are not excessively long. Our grant committees have delegated authority so that applicants are not waiting for the next Trustees meeting before hearing of the outcome of their application. We endeavour to respond to grantees quickly when they contact us.
We provide full feedback to all applicants and to those who are successful. We also provide summarised feedback on the website. Our data is submitted to 360 Giving.
We allow for virement of budgets as well as repurposing of funds (such as during COVID), we are also committed to providing full economic costs and would expect applicants to have costed their core as well as project costs.
We are in regular contact with our grantees, and when allowed visit to get a better understanding of their work. For some calls we have delivery organisations supporting them and their role is very clear. We try to have a success story on our website for each grant that provides useful comms to the grantee and those stories are co-produced with them.
Whilst the majority of our grants have reported on a yearly basis increasingly we are moving to milestone reporting, as agreed with the grantee in advance as this gives a better understanding of progress. Our report forms are very light touch as we supplement them with a conversation. We find this works much better than just a paper approach.
Guidelines for our grant schemes are available on our website and team members review to ensure they clearly state eligibility requirements and priorities. We provide Grants Workshops to help applicants understand our applications and process and encourage inquiries and phone calls from applicants before they apply to our grants to help provide clarification on any aspects of eligibility if needed.
We will promote the availability to speak with the Grants Team through our website and newsletter more regularly and provide more resources on our website for grantees/applicants. We will continue with our plan to schedule 1-2-1?s with organisations to offer support (which had to be paused due to COVID-19).
Our application forms are tailored to the grant scheme being applied to and we take into consideration the size of grant, to ensure the questions are relevant and proportional. For larger grant schemes we have a ?first stage? phone call, to ensure the grant scheme is a good fit for the applicant?s programme before they spend time on an application.
Currently, we collect anonymous feedback on our website and receive feedback from grantees through End of Grant reports. We plan to review this feedback at least twice a year to assess improvements that can be made in our application form and overall process.
We are flexible with the level of detail provided in the supporting documents of applicants/grantees. We do not reject organisations based on financial position alone and take a holistic approach to our due diligence. With our funding, we also aim to be non-prescriptive with project plans and budgets and trust the organisations to allocate funding appropriately to achieve the agreed outcomes.
We are currently thinking through how we can better demonstrate this flexibility to applicants (for example, letting organisations know their financial records do not have to be audited and can be informal) to reduce perceived barriers and provide more context on why we ask information and supporting documents.
We do our best within a small team to have grant decisions made and communicated quickly. We have our grant programmes open for a minimum of 4-6 weeks to give applicants adequate time to apply. We utilise freelance grant assessors where necessary to ensure deadlines are met without reducing applicants time. Our usual turnaround time for applications is 10-12 weeks.
We plan to review our grant approval levels this year to reduce the decision-making time for smaller grants, such as within 30 days.
We provide information on the success rates in our notification letters, grants workshops and in annual reports. Typically, our grant programmes have a 30-40% success rate. We provide individual feedback on unsuccessful applications on request.
We will review how we provide feedback with the aim of providing detailed feedback to applicants, proportional to our staff capacity. We plan to publish on our website our general success rates and more information on the application journey/process to increase transparency.
Through our own Foundation grantmaking we offer core funding. For our project funding, the majority of our programmes allow full cost recovery including a contribution to overheads. We are flexible with project extensions and re-adjustments made to budgets, activities and timescales.
We will ensure this flexibility is better communicated to our grantees and to keep open communication with them.
Our Conditions of Grant provides clear expectations for the grantee and also details our commitment to them e.g. a dedicated point of contact and support with volunteering. We check-in with our grantees through the life of their grant to identify any thing we can support with.
We will review our conditions of grant and offer letter templates in 2021 to ensure our commitment to grantees is clearly communicated.
We apply reporting requirements proportionally to the size of the grant and provide guidelines to grantees to complete the end of grant report. We use an online system that grantees can easily enter data and attach supporting documents and offer an offline template if preferred. We are flexible in our interim report formats if one is needed.
We will review the interim and end of grant report templates to ensure the information requested is proportional. A new, more flexible, reporting system will be implemented in 2021 through our database system which will further improve this.
Have a two stage application process with short EOI as stage 1 which is reviewed on rolling basis so decisions can be communicated quickly
Clear and accessible guidelines and FAQs
Offer applicants opportunity to speak directly with us on phone or video call
Partnered with other local experts to offer advice and support to applicants
Hold webinars for organisations to hear more about the funding opportunity
EOI form is short and focuses on key areas for us to be able to make quick decision
Provide word version of application forms so applicants can see whole form before starting to answer questions
Set realistic word limits
Use simple online system for accessing full application
We provide multi year grants
We take a proportionate approach to due diligence and risk taking into account the size of organisations we’re funding and the external environment they operate in
Where a risk is identified we speak directly with the organisation to better understand it and its mitigations and provide support where needed.
We are clear about the timescales of funding opportunities
Provide a good ‘window’ of time for applications to be made
Give decisions on the EOI on a rolling basis, as quickly as we can so organisations are not waiting for a decision.
We provide written feedback to all organisations who submit a full application and try to give feedback to all those who submit an EOI (volume dependent)
We have improved the diversity of our Trustees (decision makers)
We are invested in DEI training for staff and Trustees
Ask grantees to provide anonymous feedback through post award survey
We publish our grants online and through 360Giving
All grants are for a minimum of two years
We encourage all applicants to apply for core costs up to 25% of their total ask
Flexible approach to changes that will be needed during lifetime of grant and support organisations with this allowing them to make necessary adjustments
Have agreed milestone markers where we would like to hear an update from grantees (every 6 months) but outside of this allow grantees to contact us when they require our support or want to provide an update
All grantees sign a grant agreement outlining each others roles and expectations
We are just starting out on our journey of capturing impact but have made the report short and simple and in proportion to the size of grant
We offer all grantees the opportunity to speak directly with us
Ennismore has a simple application process from initial meeting to grant decision. We are open and transparent in order to not waste charities time or indeed our own.
Ennismore ensure that our questioning both verbally and in writing, is concise and relevant to the success of the project under discussion.
Ennismore accept with trust based philanthropy, there is always an element of risk. We work with and support our partners to ensure we minimise any risk.
Ennismore acts with speed, ensuring due process is followed, to ensure funds are released to charities in a timely manner.
We are transparent about our values and our method of working from first meeting. We are open and clear about mandatory and desirable requirements.
In multi year funding, we give unrestricted funds. In one year projects, if circumstances change following a donation, we work with the charity to produce a deed of variation that is mutually acceptable.
We are always very clear about our requirements both in the proposal stage and following in the project planning and delivery stages. We are open to dialogue at all stages.
We normally expect a 6 month report back on progress. This typically is less than 1 A4 sheet.
Work with our New Connections peer network to challenge our attitude to risk, and how it relates to equity.
Reduce the time we take to make funding decisions for full proposals.
Share open data on our Trustee Area of Specialist Knowledge (TASK) grants. Share how we assess and support progress on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.
Work with Stewarding Loss and the Decelerator to support organisational endings.
Make our funding terms and conditions more of a two-way agreement, with commitments from us as well as the funded organisation.
Ask organisations we fund if we can align the timing of grant reports with their other funders.
We provide a rolling programme for the majority of our grants and we aim to provide grants approval within 2 months of receiving an application. We also provide bookable 30 min phone conversations to discuss possible applications, so people don’t spend time on ineligible applications.
We have reduced our standard application to 4 key questions, so we don’t ask for unnecessary information. We work with new fundholders to ensure we keep any additional questions to only relevant ones, if required. We have increased core funding to over 40% of our grants and we are committed to introducing annual reviews as one way of reporting on core costs grants.
We have reduced our grant making policy to 4 pages using plain English to encourage marginalised and historically underrepresented groups. We have introduced a more flexible approach to CIC and other social enterprises and provide more ongoing support to more risky applications. We are currently reviewing our risk framework, including our risk appetite.
We aim to provide decisions to applicants of our rolling programme within 2 months and sooner where possible. If we have specific grant programmes with deadlines we timetable the decision process and keep applicants informed on progress. We recently decided to uplift grants by 10% or £500 (whichever was higher) to grassroots groups funded since Jan 2022 until the beginning of Feb 2023 to support cost of living increases. The board agreed this on 11th February 2023 and the payment run was on 21st Feb 2023, providing 205 additional grants.
We publish all our grant making on 360 giving. We are also collecting data on successful and unsuccessful applications and the reasons for rejections, and we are looking at how we can share this and more of our insight on grant making with stakeholders on our website. We also now provide a simple mechanism to provide anonymous feedback at the end of the application process (successful and unsuccessful) and at the end of grant.
We are committed to increasing our unrestricted core costs funding. In 2019 our core costs funding was at 26% and this year (2023), we are heading for over 40%, with our aim to get to 50% as soon as possible. This means working with our 180 fund holders to explain the benefits of core cost funding to organisations and groups.
We have committed to proactively engaging with our grant partners and the wider charitable and community sector via our community listening project. This is now an integral part of our day to day work to improve our grant making and meet the needs of grant partners. This includes surveys, 1-2-1 interviews and focus groups. We publish independently written reports publicly, which includes recommendations for us to improve our grant making. We want organisations to feel they are working in partnership with us as a place based funder and build trust. To achieve this we promote to opportunity to discuss the use of grants to make changes or reschedule.
We have reviewed our grant reporting as a result of our community listening project and have reduced the length to 4 main questions and we will always work with smaller groups to help them with reporting, including taking the reporting over the phone for those that are not used to online forms. We are also looking to introduce the use of an organisations annual report as reporting on core costs grants, so reducing the need to write a specific report.
1. On our ?Applying For Funding? page on our website, we explain our funding priorities clearly and we are transparent about our eligibility criteria.
2. All of the relevant information charities need to know is on the ?Applying for Funding? webpage on our website.
3. We offer application information in both written (?Guidelines for Application? blog post) and video (webinar with subtitles) formats.
4. We provide dedicated blog posts about The Fore?s key metric for assessing applications ? ?Transformational Impact?.
5. We conduct data analysis on reasons for rejection at Stage 1: Initial Review, and we use this to inform our decisions and adapt our processes moving forward.
6. We place a cap on the number of places available in each funding round, proportionate to the amount of funding we have raised for distribution. This enables us to ensure each application can be assessed with due care and diligence, and personalised feedback offered to each applicant. In order not to waste time, we ask organisations to complete a short registration form to access the funding round, before spending any time writing a three page application.
7. We encourage organisations to draw from applications they have previously submitted to other funders.
8. We ask for a simple 3 page word document ? we do not have lengthy application forms or set word limits, and we encourage people not to spend time on ?design? – applications are judged purely on content, not looks, spelling or grammar.
9. Once the application deadline has passed, organisations are informed within 2 weeks if they have made it to Stage 2.
1. We have designed the application process is as light touch as possible by asking the minimal and relevant questions that inform decision making.
2. We routinely review our processes before, during and after a funding round to ensure that the guidelines for application are phrased clearly.
3. We collect simple details about the applicant organisation in the registration form, and we ask applicants to create an application document up to 3 A4 pages in length detailing their work and grant request.
4. We provide 6 main questions as guidance for the application document in our ?Guidelines for Application? blog post and, as these are only examples, we understand that organisations will need to tailor them to be relevant to their organisation.
5. We list the details we ask for during Registration on the ?Applying For Funding? webpage on our website ahead of registration opening.
1. As a seed funder of small charities and social enterprises, we are more open to awarding grants to organisations that may carry an element of risk.
2. We believe small charities and social enterprises are the experts in what they do, and we trust them to use the grant in a way that will make them even better at what they do.
3. We assess the strength of the organisation (e.g. leadership) in relation to the impact of the grant (i.e. will the grant strengthen and transform the organisation in the longer-term?) We are happy to take risks on organisations who score to ensure we ultimately award grants of a riskier nature.
4. We hold funding panels for micro organisations (organisations with an income under £100,000) exclusively, and we emphasise that we are not risk averse.
5. If the Strategic Applicant Consultant who is assessing their application has highlighted a risk, organisations who are strong on our other fundign criteria have the opportunity to explain and discuss this further at Stage 2: Ideas Testing via phone call.
6. If we do not take an application forward at Stage 2 due to high risk, the organisation will have a feedback call with their Strategic Applicant Consultant to discuss how they may mitigate this risk. Strategic Applicant Consultants can also nominate the organisation for pro bono support at this point giving them access to our network of skilled corporate volunteers who can support them with strengthening their organisation. We understand organisational priorities can change over the grant term. Ideally we would like the organisation to continue to work towards achieving their targets for the grant, but we are flexible in how the money is spent to do so. However, we are also flexible in revising targets as deemed fit.
7. We give multi-year grants. Organisations can spread their grant across 1 to 3 years based on their grant request.
1. Written feedback is provided to all unsuccessful applicants within 2 weeks of the application deadline at Stage 1: Initial Review.
2. At Stage 2: Ideas Testing, applicants are informed as soon as possible whether their application is likely to be taken forward or not. Although feedback calls can take place at a slightly later date, we ultimately believe it is vital for organisations to be aware of their likelihood of receiving funding.
3. Overall, the whole process takes 3 months maximum and applicants are informed at the outset about when decision making will take place.
1. We tell charities their application will be assessed by one of our Strategic Applicant Consultants, and the ultimate decision is made by the panel.
2. We are determined to provide all applicants with meaningful, informative and applicable feedback that can inform their future applications at all stages of our application process, and we ask Strategic Applicant Consultants to be encouraging of organisations submitting future applications. Personalised written feedback is provided at Stage 1: Initial Review, and verbal feedback is provided at Stage 2: Ideas Testing and following the funding panels.
3. We update our grants data online on our own website?s searchable directory of grantees, and on 360Giving after each funding round.
4. We collect and analyse anonymous data from a Diversity, Equity and Inclusion survey completed by successful registrants and grantees from each funding round, and publish the results on our website.
1. We allow organisations to spread their grant across 1 to 3 years. We ask organisations to set their grant term based on their grant request, and they can discuss this further with their Strategic Applicant Consultant.
2. We offer unrestricted funding to small charities and social enterprises.
3. We agree on 2 or 3 targets per year that the organisation should aim to achieve during their grant term. We are flexible in how the grant can be spent to do this, and targets can also be adapted if the organisation has rapidly changed direction.
4. We encourage open and honest conversations with all of our grantees. We want to discuss their successes and challenges throughout the grant team, and we are committed to supporting grantees by demonstrating flexibility in how the grant is used.
5. Each application is assessed with due care and due diligence, meaning we have complete confidence and trust in the organisation to use the grant in a way that transforms their organisation in the longer-term.
1. At the start of the grant term, we clearly outline the relationship we seek to establish with our grantees through an online induction session. We want grantees to feel able to have open and honest conversations with us, and we outline the support we can offer them throughout the grant term and beyond (free Impact Measurement courses, access to our workshops programme, and pro bono support).
2. We strongly encourage all grantees to contact any member of The Fore team if they have a query or issue they would like to discuss.
3. We clearly outline the frequency and depth of contact. We schedule a Monitoring and Evaluation call annually via Zoom to discuss how the last year has been for the organisation, and we emphasise that we do not want them to do any preparation for this call.
4. We communicate with organisations that we will respond to their email query within 2 working days from our public facing mailbox.
1. We do not ask grantees for formal, written reports as we understand this is not time or cost-effective.
2. We schedule a Monitoring and Evaluation call via Zoom for 1 hour and we write notes about the conversation. We structure the Monitoring and Evaluation call to cover topics that will provide the information we need: General commentary on programmes, fundraising, partnerships, staffing and board, additional challenges, engagement with our pro bono offering, engagement with our workshops programme and Impact Measurement courses, review of each target set for the past year, and outlook for the next year.
3. We ask organisations to complete a short survey following the Monitoring and Evaluation, and we ask for this to be completed within 2 to 3 weeks of the call. All financial information needed for this can be drawn from the grantee?s last set of annual accounts, reducing the burden of work required. We only ask for the information we need and will use, e.g.: annual income for this year, staffing numbers this year, number of programmes this year, etc.
4. Organisations set their targets for each year of their grant term, which are refined during discussions with their Strategic Applicant Consultant during the application process to ensure they are realistic, proportionate and helpful to the charity.
Our supporting documentation guidelines are regularly reviewed to reflect any common issues that applicants have had. We only request to see what is needed for a specific programme. We plan to review processes to reduce the amount of duplicate paperwork we request.
We have reduced the number of questions and amount of data we ask for. We will continue to regularly review the application process for each programme to ensure only needed questions are asked.
We have updated panel training to focus on less obvious potential outcomes and encourage decision makers to focus on benefits rather than detailed project planning and budgets.
We publish timeframes when each funding round opens on our website. If unforeseen circumstances mean these timeframes have to change significantly we will directly notify all applicants and be understanding if this impacts project delivery.
We are looking at updating the information on our website to include the most common reasons for rejection.
We will fund operating costs as well as project costs. If applicants are unable to complete a funded project as anticipated we will discuss alternative options rather than request funding back.
We aim to provide as much positive support as possible to applicants. Even where they are not eligible to apply to us we aim to give useful information and signpost as appropriate.
We will review our feedback requirements to ensure they remain appropriate and proportionate to the funding provided.
FS commits to:
? Continue to provide step by step fund guidance and eligibility criteria, including clear priorities, information about previous awards, FAQs and top tips for applicants.
? Encourage enquiries and provide tailored support to applicants, dealing efficiently with your enquiry.
? For larger applications, we will sometimes request an initial expression of interest and, only on the basis of that invite, a full application.
? Where appropriate, use one to one assessment calls with applicants to gather further relevant information.
? Harness technology to make application and grant management (e.g., online applications and monitoring reports) are as efficient as possible for all stakeholders.
FS commits to:
? Ensuring we only ask applicants for information that is relevant to making a funding decision on their application and throughout the grant process.
? Ensuring our guidance is easily accessible and written in plain English, avoiding the use of industry jargon.
? Providing assessment reports to decision-makers that are clear, focused and only contain appropriate & relevant information.
? Ensuring that we are proportionate in the monitoring information requested.
FS commits to:
? When considering risk, we will seek to understand the full context surrounding projects, for example, the negative impact of the pandemic on the financial position of many organisations.
? Developing different approaches to fund distribution, ensuring that the risk to all our customers is balanced.
? Continuing to trust grantees to deliver contracted projects.
? Commit to continually reviewing our approach to risk.
FS commits to:
? Continue to provide reasonable timescales for all award decisions and ensure both our deadlines and your expectations are met.
? Ensuring adequate resource is available to enable timeliness and flexibility in grant-making and fund distribution.
? Act with urgency when circumstances warrant [e.g. for specific emergency response funds].
FS commits to:
? Providing clear feedback on unsuccessful applications, which is practicable, specific and supportive.
? Continue to provide transparency via our website on what to expect during our application processes, how we make decisions, and what we expect from grantees.
? Publish all our awards on our website and 360Giving.
? Continue to explore new ways to disseminate information on grants made and to evidence the impact of our funds.
? Consider ways to involve third parties in reviewing our outward-facing communications and grant-making practices.
FS commits to:
? Exploring opportunities for unrestricted grants with the many donors and panels we support, developing guidance and criteria for offering this.
? Continue to respond positively to requests for flexibility in the use of grant awards where changes are reasonable given project circumstances and remain within the original grant purpose.
? Explore steps that can be taken to guard against over-reliance on grant funding and encourage opportunities for self-generated income. Target grants to enable expansion of self-generated income where appropriate/ the opportunity exists.
? Regularly monitor and review fund aims with donors and advisory panels to ensure purposes are still relevant to beneficiary communities.
? Monitor impact in a way that captures longer term social and environmental change, as well as short term indicators.
? Exploring alternative ways of distributing funds beyond open grant-making, tailored to local contexts and in partnership with donors, advisory panels or other stakeholders.
FS commits to:
? Building relationships that are constructive and supportive.
? Work towards aligning our grant and loan-making with our overall vision/mission and our environmental, social justice and ethical goals.
? Engage with grantees about impact in a meaningful and supportive way, requesting information that is proportionate and will be used by the Foundation.
? FS welcomes conversations with other funders about shared grant-making processes.
FS commits to:
? Regular (annual) review of application materials and processes to ensure information requested is relevant and proportionate to the funding request.
? Ensuring grant conditions are meaningful (i.e., actually manage risk), achievable, written in plain English and proportionate to the grant size and risk.
? Support grantees in meeting those conditions, signposting them where possible to other sources of help.
We are considering our application processes in terms of whether or not we are asking for the right amount of information to assess if we would be interested in an organisation’s work. Perhaps we do not need to know so much and ask them to do as much work on an applicaiton to know this as it often feels instinctively as if we don’t
We have individual meetings with each potential grantee to clearly explain our funding priorities and the process.
We have used grantee feedback and experience to adapt and streamline our processes.
We will regularly review our website content to ensure our requirements and exclusions are clear.
Potential grantees fill out 2 forms ? a proposal and a due diligence document. The proposal layout is designed in a flexible way with general headings to enable the organisations to describe the project in the way they see fit.
We have adapted and simplified our proposal forms and due diligence checks over time following feedback and experience of grantees.
In the due diligence process, we ask the organisation to provide their key documents (eg. insurance and safeguarding) but we take responsibility for compiling information on applicants from publicly held records (eg. Charity Commission).
We take a commission-based approach to proposal development and work with the grantees to co-write a proposal that most accurately reflects their project.
For large scale projects, with multiple match funders, we welcome utilising existing proposal material instead of requiring grantees to use our forms.
We fund innovation projects so are comfortable to accept our share of risk.
We are responsive and flexible to changes in project mid-delivery and are happy to understand and agree changes to delivery models, staffing and reported outcomes as appropriate.
We do not have timed application rounds. We respond to proposals as they arise and will work at the pace of the grantee.
Decisions to fund are made quickly at an operational level and are only referred to Exec or Board for decision if the investment is for an unusually large amount. The decision process is always communicated to the grantee.
We have created specific, urgent and targeted funding programmes during the pandemic and, more recently, in the cost-of-living crisis.
We have a commission-model approach rather than an open grants model. We target organisations, linked to our Fusion21 Ltd business model, to explore potential investments. We make that clear within our website content.
We publicise the projects we have funded through our website.
Within the sectors we operate (eg. social housing) we are open about our approach as a funder, and what we will and won?t fund.
We will explore other opportunities to share our grant giving (eg. 360giving).
We have recently developed a VCSE Sector Resilience Programme which is a different approach to funding for us (we usually fund projects and research). This new programme includes capacity building support and core cost funding.
We will continue to ensure that the % contribution to essential operating costs is accurately reflected in project proposals for VCSE organisations.
Throughout the proposal development process, we jointly agree expectations of each other in terms of project delivery, monitoring and communication.
We request feedback from each grantee at the end of the funding on their experience of us as a funder.
Through the proposal process, we have open conversations with the grantee about what they will measure and how they will measure it. We have sometimes challenged organisations when we have felt they are committing to measuring too many outcomes.
We take a measured approach to monitoring meetings and reporting. Simple report templates can be provided. Equally we are happy to accept other report formats ? especially if they?re reporting to multiple funders.
At Global’s Make Some Noise (GMSN) we’ve streamlined our application and review processes to ensure that our grant-making decisions are made swiftly and efficiently. By reducing administrative burdens, we allow our charity partners to focus more on their vital work and less on completing forms (application and monitoring).
We ask relevant and focused questions during our grant application process to gather only the essential information needed to make informed decisions without overwhelming our applicants. Our goal is to respect the time and resources of our small charity partners while obtaining the data we need to support them effectively and make informed grant decisions.
We are committed to supporting bold and creative initiatives that address pressing community needs. By accepting and managing risk, we empower (new) small charities to experiment with new approaches and drive impactful change, even when it involves stepping into the unknown.
Our amended 2024 (and onwards) grants timeline is designed to get funds as quickly as possible after being selected and offer a mix of project and core funding grants. We understand that immediate action can make a significant difference. We are exploring opportunities to launch new grant cycles throughout the year to better meet the needs of small charities.
Transparency and openness are central to our grant-making approach. We share clear and comprehensive information about our funding priorities, application processes, and decision-making criteria. This openness helps build trust with our charity partners and ensures that they fully understand how to engage with us.
We ensure that we are available to answer questions, provide guidance, and offer support throughout the grant application, implementation and project delivery stages. By being open and responsive, we help small charities navigate challenges and make the most of our funding opportunities.
We seek input from our stakeholders, esp. the small charities we fund, to inform our strategies and initiatives, as well as improve our processes and support offers. This approach ensures that our grant-making is informed by a variety of voices and experiences, leading to more effective and equitable outcomes.
We appreciate that the landscape of charitable work is constantly changing. That’s why our grant approach supports charities to amend their agreements with us to adapt their projects as circumstances evolve. This flexibility ensures that our funding remains effective and relevant, regardless of unexpected challenges or opportunities.
We have an open, honest, and purposeful dialogue with our charity partners to understand their needs, challenges, and successes. By communicating clearly and regularly, we build strong, trust-based relationships that enable us to provide better support and achieve shared goals.
We tailor our expectations and requirements to ensure they are realistic and manageable, allowing our charity partners to focus on delivering impactful programmes rather than meeting onerous administrative demands.
We have revised our application forms to reduce the amount of information requested and make them simpler to complete. We encourage pre-application support calls and aim to have honest conversations with applicants before they apply and during the assessment process to ensure that applications are eligible for a particular fund.
Due diligence documentation is stored so that it only has to be uploaded if it has changed since previous applications.
We regularly review and update our eligibility criteria for each programme to reduce ineligible applications.
Only information that we need to help make decisions is asked for as part of our application process.
We ask for formal feedback at the end of the grant via an online report form. We have reduced the length of our end of grant reporting forms to only ask for information that we know we will use in the future either to better understand the difference the grant has made, to help us to develop our programme and processes or to feedback to fundholders and donors. These are proportionate to the size of grant available through the programme.
We have tested our application forms on applicants and also ask for feedback on our service delivery as part of the end of grant report.
We recognise that a degree of risk is vital to enable growth. We are committed to supporting groups and grants with a light touch approach and will not penalise grantees from future funding if their plans have needed to change. We recognise that not every grant will be without challenges but understand that this is a valuable opportunity to learn. Risk is mitigated by keeping communication open and building relationships with applicants and other funders to help improve our knowledge. Due diligence remains thorough with less onus upon applicants.
We publish timelines for our grantmaking and aim to process grant applications as quickly as we can within the reasonable constraints of our very small team. Most programmes provide decisions within 8 weeks of an application deadline and in emergency circumstances we are able to pivot to a rolling programme of applications with speedier decisions when necessary.
We publish all of our grants in our Annual Report and share examples on our website and in our impact reports. We are open when talking about our work and our decision processes and aim to develop relationships with our grantee and applicant groups. We respond to all enquiries either by email, telephone or in person.
We hold regular online Let’s Talk/Let’s Listen sessions that anybody who wants to learn more about the Foundation or to share their views on particular subjects/issues are welcome to join.
Wherever our funding allows, we are able to support grantees in granting project variations/extensions. Some funds that we manage have less flexible constraints on spending and timelines. We are open to applications for core funding and non-prescriptive funding to support overall organisation aims.
We will work to be clear in our expectations, maintaining a transparent relationship with our grantees and encouraging them to get in touch if they have any concerns or questions.
Whenever possible, we outline the expectations of the monitoring within the Grant Agreement right at the beginning of the funding relationship. We review all end of grant reports and applications and are happy to provide feedback.
Application forms and grant report forms are designed to be proportionate to the size of grant that can be awarded by each grant programme with smaller grant programmes having shorter forms and requesting less information.
The questions we ask within our monitoring are those we use for the purposes of feeding back to our donors and sharing our impact.
We only approach potential applicants if we feel they are a good fit with our priorities. We make these clear in initial conversations and our application guidance notes. We ask for short applications and approve nearly all that come to committee. In 2023 our website will launch with the goal of explaining clearly how and what we fund. We will also begin compensating unsuccessful applicants for the time spent on writing applications. We also don’t require written reports from grantees in favour of a more relational approach and informal quarterly check in calls.
We hold an initial conversation with potential applicants and research their work and its context ourself so that if they are invited to the formal application stage they have a high chance of success. As our funding is typically unrestricted or core funding applications do give an overview of a whole organisation.
Our trustees have a high appetite for risk- we often fund early stage, pilot or experimental work. We fund individuals and a range of organisational stuctures and expect that not all work will be successful in the terms first set out. In terms of due diligence we also accept that applicants are a work in progress (as we are) and if we can provide relevant support for organisational development we will do this.
Our trustees meet every two months where most funding decisions are made. Requests for smaller amounts of £10k or less can be agreed in between trustee meetings and typically take less than 30 days to turn around. When needed due to urgency the trustees can and do make decisions on larger pieces of funding between meetings.
We give personalised feedback on all decisions and are open to follow up conversations. Gower Street increased its staff capacity (to just over 1fte) and grant making in 2022 and we have readied ourselves to publish all of our grants on our website and via 360 giving in 2023.
The majority of our funding is unrestricted. We occassionally fund a piece of project work for larger organisations but this funding is unrestricted within that project or workstream.
We take a relational approach to grant making and we agree the outline of how to interact at the start of a funding arrangement. This is typically based around quarterly catch up calls. In 2022 we convened our grantees for the first time and the virtual event was well received. We will do more convening in the future but are mindful of having a purpose to all our interactions and allowing the relationships to develop in the way that is of most benefit to the grantees. We are mindful that addressing the inevitable power imbalance between funder and grantee is ongoing work.
We don’t require written reports but we do read reports written for a larger audience where provided with interest.
We will make clear from the outset how much funding there is and how many organisations we are likely to be able to fund. We will be clear and concise with our requirements and offer telephone/email communication for those who want to ask questions to help aid their decision as to whether to apply or not.
For larger funds we use a two stage process with only essential questions at the first stage so that we can make decisions about who to invite back to the next round. For smaller amounts we have one round but keep our questions to a minimum, reviewing regularly to make sure that we are only asking what we need to know.
We ask a proportionate amount of due diligence from organisations and have changed our policy so that each funding stream, amount of funding and service delivery risk is assessed for each funding programme. This ensures that that we do not require the same policy documents for each project e.g. an organisation receiving £500 for a short-term social activity programme does not need the same level of risk assessment and due diligence as a Mental Health organisation receiving funding for a year-long project supporting young people.
We always publish our timetables with the information on the funding and make sure that decisions are made within an acceptable timeframe, and communicated to both successful and unsuccessful applicants.
We give feedback to applicants on why there were unsuccessful and they are able to contact us for more detailed feedback should they wish.
On rolling programme funds, the feedback given can be used on their next application.
We fund the essential operating costs for organisations, including staffing costs, not just direct project costs.
We accommodate changes to a project during its delivery life cycle providing that the overall aims of the programme are still met. This includes changes in what will be delivered, how, and what cost items the funding is used for.
All of our expectations are designed for each specific grant and are detailed in the initial information. We have a close relationship with the organisations that we fund and ensure that we are available from the very beginning of the process to communicate with them about expectations and discuss any issues they may face.
Recent examples include co-agreeing the contents and timelines of their grant agreements before finalising.
Information events are held with opportunities for a Q and A session, this helps to build relationships with different members of staff within the applying organisation so that they can ask questions during the application process and when drafting grant agreements. Outcomes and outputs within the application process are used in the grant agreement.
Regular monitoring meetings allow the successful organisations to discuss delivery challenges and if changes to the delivery plan need to be made to help meet measurable outcomes.
We are committed to designing our reporting in proportion to the amount of grant that we are giving where we have control, and working with partners to ensure the reporting is accessible and meaningful and supporting organisations to understand the methods where necessary.
We are also flexible with how organisations do their reporting. We provide guidance/templates but when an organisation presents an alternative format we accept this providing it captures similar impact.
We provide PDFs of our online application forms.
The forms are as short as possible.
The forms can be saved and returned to later.
People with impairments can call the Charity to complete an application over the phone or via email, whatever suits their needs.
We have what we call a Charity Liaison Group. A member of our Livery company with knowledge and skills in the charity sector calls a shortlisted charity, one each, to gain details about the application. Things can change months after they first apply.
The questions on the form enable a charity, no matter what size, to tell out the Outcomes and any extra financial explanations, and we ask to provide short-form budget questions.
We understand priorities can change and approve sound changes to what the agreed funding is supporting – with no waiting period.
We fund core costs.
We understand at times a programme may not go to plan, with sound explanation.
Each year we set a strategy based on the pressing needs in society.
The committee and Charity Manager understand socio-economic and demographic needs.
The Charity Manager is a Trustee of the Associations of Charitable Foundations. And the Charity is a member of the ACF.
Our new website has 360 grant data and examples of awarded grants.
Our funding categories tell an applicant why and what we fund.
Our website has a page outlining the deadlines at each process stage.
As above we remain flexible to the most pressing needs of the charities. They are the experts and we listen.
Communication is clear and leaves little interpretation.
Follow-up emails about outstanding items occur without prejudice. We know charities are incredibly busy supporting people.
We have a light touch in our process because we are a small funder, e.g., generally £5k.
For the £15k environment award, we expect an update on how the funds were used and how they impacted the environment.
Inviting people to apply & co-creating the application – on the basis of they know what they want to tell me/I know what I need to hear. A typical application is completed in under 2 hours.
Our chief interest is how the money will help achieve scale – so we do not have anything superfluous in our form. We deal with a sufficiently low volume of partners that we can chat through any concerns.
We recognise that doing good is difficult. Where we are supporting a partner to explore something inherently risky, like a new fundraising stream, we view a null hypothesis (i.e. this did not work) as a productive outcome so long as we understand why.
Getting money out the door quickly – from our inception to date we’ve accelerated our output.
Our website is clear and (when time allows) will publish on 360Giving. In our first accounts we’ll itemise our grants.
We can be entirely flexible as we give unrestricted money – you tell us how to make the best use of our investment.
In progress – we want to position as a thought leader (but only when we know something!)
In progress.
Small Grants programme: we will provide greater clarity on the two-step application process on our website and the copy will be far more transparent with regard to success rates, size of fund, timelines etc. The eligibility criteria will be tightened to avoid charities wasting time by applying.
Major Grants programme: this is a closed programme in that Trustees proactively seek out small-medium sized charities whose work closely aligns with the Haberdashers? eligibility criteria. We will make this explicit in website comms to ensure transparency.
Small Grants programme: we will continue our use of an application form proportionate to the size of grant (max £3,000). We will remove questions whose answers can be found via the charity?s website/Charities Commission entry.
Major Grants programme: the two-step process (the second of which is a brief presentation followed by Q&A/conversation) is proportionate to the size of grant. We will continue to engage with major grant holders in terms of critiquing application process.
We understand that charities live and work in an increasingly uncertain world. We ask them to liaise with us if their circumstances change, and we operate in an open and relational manner in order that their staff feel able to approach us.
We are willing to work together to minimise risk both for them and the Haberdashers, and especially for the communities and individuals they work with.
We set clear timetables for the application process, including when charities will hear the outcomes of our decision-making. We stick rigidly to those deadlines.
Timescales are not long or drawn out, and in most instances, an organisation will only have to wait a matter of weeks from their application submission to funding out the funding decision.
We will share the number of applicants and success rates for our Small Grants programme on the website. We endeavour to share solid reasons for declining an application.
We will be publishing grants? data on 360Giving in the coming year.
We trust organisations to spend our grant well. We offer restricted and unrestricted grants, but offer considerable flexibility within our restricted grant-making.
We are a flexible funder who works alongside organisations should they need to change direction (cf Covid-19), or if outcomes are looking likely to differ from the original intent. We are a modest grant-maker so able to build relationships with those we support, and are proud that we respond to their changing circumstances (and have a track record of doing so).
We hope to offer more than a simple financial transaction for our awardees. There is a huge amount of professional talent within the membership of the Company, and this can be shared with our awardees.
We have a network of members who can support our chosen organisations beyond the grant ? with targeted expertise, mentoring, networking and creative solutions.
We invite charities to enjoyable social events that are usually outside the scope of their daily work in the charity sector.
We build a relationship of trust with the organisations we support, and our reporting is proportionate to the size of grants awarded.
Our reporting template is straightforward and organisations can make use of their own bank of responses in order that it doesn?t add unnecessarily to their administrative workload.
We would welcome the chance to work alongside an organisation who was struggling with reporting requirement ? and find a way to make it work for us both.
We will continue to ensure that our funding criteria and priorities are clearly presented on our website, and will review this information on a quarterly basis to take account of any learning from each funding round. We will continue to provide potential applicants with the opportunity to discuss their funding needs and seek clarification pre-application via accessible one to one calls and monthly group sessions online. We will update our website on a quarterly basis with details on average grant amount and success rates so that applicants enter the process with realistic expectations. We will be upfront with applicants when launching new grant programmes about their likelihood of success.
We will maintain our two stage process. A succinct application form is followed by a telephone assessment to ensure that all applicants are given a fair hearing and have the opportunity to sell their project and address any project / organisation specific queries. We will keep our requirements for supporting documentation under review to ensure that we avoid duplication and unnecessary requests. We are committed to only asking questions that we need the answer to in order to support the decision making process. We will continue to seek applicant feedback on our processes and will make relevant improvements where possible
We recognise the financial challenges facing charities today. We will therefore not reject applications on the basis of low reserves if the applicant has a plan in place to support ongoing viability. We will give upfront grants in order to facilitate cashflow for successful applicants. We will give applicants a chance to explain any significant changes in their financial position and how they are managing and mitigating any risks we have identified.
We have reduced our decision making time from 16 weeks until 10 weeks, with the average turnaround time from submission to decision being 6 weeks on our main Community Flex Programme. We will continue to issue letters of offer within 24 hours of panel funding decisions. We will make payments monthly.
If, during the assessment process we are sure that a project will not be funded, we will be upfront with applicants straight away, rather than make them wait. We will give them the opportunity to withdraw their application and resubmit a new application immediately where we can. We will continue to publish details of all successful applications on a quarterly basis via 360 Giving. We have revised our unsuccessful letter to include the reason for rejection, giving applicants an opportunity to discuss the reason(s) for rejection, with a view to increasing their future chances.
We will be upfront with applicants that we will be flexible – we will give them the space to adapt by making it simple to reprofile budgets, and extend budgets where required. We will continue to provide applicants with the opportunity to apply for funding to cover core costs, overheads and/or salaries. We will continue to provide applicants with the opportunity to seek recurring funding.
We will continue our endeavours to build personal relationships and maintain open communication channels throughout the assessment, project delivery and evaluation stages, whereby all applicants feel empowered to raise queries or concerns. We will continue to give consideration to all reasonable re-profiling or project extension requests, and will continue to recognise the need to respond positively to unforeseen challenges.
We will provide a space for grantees to provide feedback on all aspects of our service, and act on the feedback received.
We are commited to only asking questions that we need the answer to in order to make funding decisions and evaluate the impact of our support. We will continue to take a trusting and light touch approach to project monitoring and will seek applicant feedback on our reporting requirements. We will continue to ensure that any financial vouching exercises are commensurate with the level of funding awarded and will continue to audit on a 25% sample basis.
We have a very simple application form and our criteria are on the website. The time between application and decision is under a month. We encourage applicants to contact us in advance of submitting an application to give guidance before applicants spend time submitting an application.
Our application form is very short. As a placed based application many applicants are already known to us as are the communities they work in and so we do not ask for information we already know the answer to.
We fund small, local organisations and are often the first funder for a group or project. We take risks to enable local groups to build up a track record or evidence base to enable them to move on to larger funders.
We make decisions within a month of receiving the application. Funding is awarded within 1 week of the paperwork being received.
If there are specific points we can identify which would make the application more fundable we explain this to the applicants and encourage them to reapply.
We give both core and project funding and do not have a target for either. We have often agreed to a change in the project if contacted by a grantee.
We do not impose extra requirements on our grantees (eg compulsory attendance at networking meetings) and communications are limited to grant agreement/payment, monitoring forms and our quarterly newsletter.
Our reporting requirements are light touch and we are happy to take case study or other evidence of impact. As a place based funder we are able to visit the majority of grantees to see the impact of their work in person.
Shift EOI (Expression of Interest)and standard application forms to reduce burden on teams.
Actively bring this into conversations with award holders to hold risk and uncertainty, and provide support for organisations in navigation.
We set out the criteria for each funding programme we run, including both the eligibility criteria and the priorities that each fund has.
We also state clearly the types of projects and the types of organisations that will not be eligible for our funding.
These are available to all applicants before they start the application process.
Particularly in the case of new funds, we review the applications that were rejected to assess whether we need to adjust the published criteria and priorities before opening a further round of funding.
Our current CRM development will enable groups to access and reuse data they have given to us before instead of re-entering it.
We adapt our programme type to the amount of funding available to ensure that we do not, by design, introduce a high failure rate due to lack of funds.
We tailor our application forms to each funding programme to make sure that we are only asking questions that are relevant for that particular fund’s priorities. We modify the level of detail requested in proportion to the size of grant available.
We are moving towards relying more on publicly held records (e.g. accounts from the Charity Commission).
We adjust the level of governance checks proportionate to the level of grants available and in the last year have managed to significantly reduce the amount of documentation that applicants are required to submit.
We explore ways to work with unconstituted organisations, through partnering them with more established groups.
Where possible we work with donors to develop funding programmes that accept trial and pilot projects, with the associated understanding that they may not all be successful but will nevertheless create a learning opportunity.
We are currently running our first unrestricted grant making programme aimed at supporting VCSE orgs with a shortfall in funding that is not required to be related to a specific project, but rather trusts the orgs to use the funds in the most effective way for them.
We publish our application deadlines for our funds and set out how quickly people can expect to hear from us and receive payment.
Our individual and crisis funds are committed to making most decisions within a week of application.
Our micro-grants programme generally makes decisions within 3-4 of application.
We adjust our internal processes to meet deadlines rather than compromise the published schedule for applicants.
We are transparent about our decision making. Where we reject applications we always explain our reasons and where possible give applicants feedback and guidance as to how to make their applications more fundable in future.
We publish details of our grant making in quarterly newsletters.
We give beneficiaries the opportunity to give feed back on our operation as well as the impact of their grant as standard. This information is collated and reviewed for improvements or changes needed.
We are working towards publishing on 360 Giving.
We encourage groups to talk to us if they identify a need to adjust the purpose of grant spending in the face of change priorities or circumstances. Wherever possible we facilitate the change requested, including if necessary adjusting the period over which we expect to receive end of grant reporting.
Our Vol Sector Resilience Fund is designed to provide funding for essential operating costs of an organisation rather than direct project costs.
From the outset we are clear about the scope, criteria and priorities of our funds.
Our terms and conditions are only those essential to good grant ,management and are set out clearly, including any reporting / accountability requirements.
We aim to ask any necessary questions to process a grant at one time. If the level of support needed is greater than can be achieved by an email exchange we offer an outreach session with a Programmes Officer.
We regularly review the applicant, governance and reporting requirements, aiming to be proportionate to the grant given and relevant to the purpose of the fund. We have recently undertaken a consultation exercise with the sector locally about the most appropriate and easiest way for them to account for their grant spend. For the larger bespoke awards we work with the beneficiary to agree when/how they would be able to provide meaningful reports of the impact of their work. We encourage reports that explain a “story of change” rather than simply detail numerical activity.
Our funding priorities, application forms and guidelines are published on our website. Applicants are encouraged to contact us if anything is unclear or to have a discussion about their work. Applicants are asked to complete an eligibility questionnaire before submitting an application to ensure criteria is met before spending time on the form.
Our application form and questions were developed using feedback from applicants and grant holders. We ask all applicants for feedback. We have a continuous improvement approach and make changes so that our forms are easy to complete. We reviewed our Stage 2 assessment in 2019, challenging ourselves to ask questions that were critical to decision making and not just ?nice to know?.
We have a two-stage process and visit all applicants at Stage 2. If we identify risks and need additional information prior to, or after awarding a grant, we explain why this is needed. If trustees decide not to award a grant, we explain the reasons to applicants, and what they could do to give us assurance if they apply again (after a year).
We publish timescales on our website. We monitor how long it takes for applicants to get a decision and publish this data on our website in our Annual Grant making review. Applicants will get a decision about whether they have been invited to Stage 2 within 6-8 weeks. The end-to-end process can take up to six-months, but we have been trying new ways of working and aim to reduce this over the next few years.
If an applicant is declined at Stage 1, they can request a call back through a form on our website. We will give feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of the application and the reasons it was not put through. If the trustees decide not to award a grant after an applicant has gone through our Stage 2 process, we will have a more in-depth conversation with them about the reasons why. We publish our success rates and reasons for rejection on our website in our Annual Grant making review.
Applicants can choose to apply for running costs or project costs, whichever is best for the organisation. If the organisation is carrying out work which does not fit our eligibility, we encourage them to apply for project costs if the specific work they want us to fund does meet our eligibility. We fund tried and tested approaches. We want to support organisations to do what they do best, and we don?t expect them to have to package this up to look like new work or innovation. We?re flexible in our approach and understand that needs change and during the life of our relationship, which can be up to nine years, there may be adjustments to timescales and how the funds are used. This is OK with us.
At all stages of our application process, we will be clear about the next steps and the information we need. When we are arranging to visit an organisation, we?ll be flexible and offer options. We?ll be clear about the purpose of the visit, who needs to attend and how long it will take. Once an organisation has been awarded a grant, they will have an allocated Grants Manager who will explain what is needed to release the funds and what our reporting requirements are.
We only ask grant holders to report to us once a year. We designed a Progress Report template which is easy to complete and doesn?t have too many questions. We collect feedback on this and have made improvements as a result. We look forward to getting reports, we read all of them and give feedback each time. This is built into our processes, and we monitor to make sure it is done. We learn from what grant holders tell us and it informs our grant making.
We will strive to reduce jargon and ambiguity in our criteria and priorities and we will provide clear information on application success rates as well as the reality of how much funding we have to distribute so that applicants can have a better sense of how likely they are to be successful.
Our recent forms seem to have been clear and comparatively straightforward for applicants to complete but we will constantly monitor this and fine-tune where necessary. We will also survey previous applicants to see how they found the forms and if they suggest any improvements.
We are not risk averse – we will not decline an organisation solely because it is new or very small, or if its finances aren’t in perfect shape. The most important consideration is their ability to help people in need.
As we progress our processes it seems that we will move to having pre-set, fixed, application windows. These will allow us to state in advance when an applicant should receive a decision, so that they are not hanging on waiting for an indeterminate time. We will also strive to meet reasonable turn-around times.
We are in the process of creating a new website which will be able to have more information on who we fund, our success rates, what we look for, and where organisations can find other potential sources of funding.
Whilst we have offered core, project and unrestricted grants the difference between these has not been expressed with enough clarity so we will address this. We will continue to be flexible if/when groups need to change the focus of our funding or the timeframe. etc.
We will contact groups by email or phone if we need more information or there is something they need to know. When we want to arrange a telephone assessment we will be clear as to how long it will take and also reassure that the conversation is not an interview or anything they should be worried about – merely a need to have a bit more information on some things.
Our application forms and monitoring forms are as simple and clear as possible and designed to be unambiguous. We make small grants to small organisations and are always conscious that many groups do not have staff paid specifically to do the things we need, so we try to keep the burden on them as light as possible.
We will make effective use of applicant’s time by communicating clearly and by keeping all the grant details in one place. Including:
? Scope: topic, consistent criteria and type of organisations who are eligible.
? Funding amount and number of grants to be given out.
? How we will decide and judge each application.
? Timelines.
? FAQs. The measurement and monitoring requirements.
? How to contact us with any further questions.
All copy is proofed by somebody independent of the fund, for clarity. We will publish our success rates.
We have a ?wash up? after each grant fund to look for any ‘unwritten rules’ that we hadn’t identified to update our criteria or guidelines in future. Where possible we will use an Expression of Interest and eligibility questions to have a 2-staged process to only invite longer applications from those most relevant. When scoping a new fund, we will gain insight into where funding is most needed to avoid duplication to best support those we fund.
We will only ask relevant questions, that are needed to help us judge applications, for contact purposes, or for due diligence, and ensure a straightforward application process through:
? A concise, easy to use, online application form using dropdown lists where possible with clear, reasonable word limits.
? An explanation of the purpose of each question or information request and how it links to the grant criteria.
? Proof-reading and testing application forms for clarity, accessibility and to ensure no overlap between questions.
? A downloadable version of the questions to help applicants prepare their answers.
We’ll aim to have a 2-staged application process where possible/relevant, to use an Expression of Interest form to ensure we only collect information we need at each stage, that’s also proportionate to the size of the grant. Detailed project and monitoring plans will only be needed at the shortlisting or grant award stage.
We’ll ask applicants for feedback on the process and make changes where anything is unclear or could be improved.
Hubbub?s vision is to inspire action that’s good for the environment and for everyone. Much of our work is about trialling new ideas and scaling what we discover works. Behaviour change at scale comes with necessary risk. We will aim to state where we may be looking for a proportion of more ‘risky’ applications.
Our grants mostly fall into one of two groups: Innovation grants or Community grants.
For Innovation grants we will be looking for new, creative ideas to an issue which may inherently come with more risk. If an organisation is relatively new for example, we may look at the individual?s track record to manage risk and large funded projects, alongside the organisation’s financial status.
For Community grants, we recognise small community groups face many challenges that come with risk. During the pandemic for example, we surveyed community groups we fund to understand the other pressures they’re facing and share trends with those who fund us, with the aim of improving support for community groups.
While we will ask applicants to assess risks associated with their project, we enable flexibility in delivery of grant funds and are realistic about the level of assurance that applicants can give us. We trust in organisations to manage their own operational decisions and aim to work collaboratively. We encourage funded organisations to share risk concerns with us and where possible will support them to overcome these.
We capture learnings from all funded organisations as we believe these are as important as successes. We aim to publish summarised learnings to help others avoid the same challenges and ensure a stronger legacy of our funds.
We will review each grant fund after the application process and completion of grant funds to consider the risk approach and anything that could be improved.
As part of our grant fund wash ups, we’ll see where our acceptance of and approach to risk could be improved, as well as asking applicants to provide feedback where possible.
We always publish the specific timeline of the grant fund at the outset including key milestones for application deadlines, any stages of applications and when they’ll hear the result, as well as approximate payment dates. We’ll ensure we’ve enough resource to stick to our published timelines.
We’ll give a reasonable amount of time for applicants to apply and publicise the grant well to make sure the right organisations are aware of the funding opportunity.
If working with partners to deliver the fund, we’ll aim to have the partners in place so projects can start and run to time.
For smaller grant funds <£50k, we'll aim to provide decisions within 6 weeks or less of the application deadline (30 days where possible). For grants > £50k we aim to provide decisions within 2 months or less from the application deadline.
We’ll cut out wait times by having an ?Expression of Interest? where possible.
We aim to have a 2-staged process, include an Expression of Interest (EOI):
1. At EOI stage we will aim to summarise the common reasons that applications were not successful. If an applicant is hoping to re-apply for future rounds, where possible, we will offer them a call to provide more detailed feedback to help them apply next time.
2. At full application stage, we will endeavour to provide specific, useful feedback. This will be most detailed for those who have reached the Grant Panel stage and pitched. We’ll aim to make feedback proportionate to the grant amount and effort the applicant has put in.
When using a Grant Panel, we always consider a diversity of views, experience, and demographics. We will publish our success rates e.g., number of grants available versus awarded. Our FAQs will include reasons we commonly reject applications.
We are keen to do more in this area and will be reviewing our processes and best practice. For example:
? Where relevant sharing examples of what successful and unsuccessful answers look like (less relevant for innovation funds with varying topics).
? We will invite feedback from applicants on the application process.
? We’ll review how feedback was given at the grant fund wash up and what we could improve.
? We’ll also keep assessing whether we’ve any ‘unwritten’ criteria to ensure and consider the best course of action to provide transparency.
? We’ll use an Equalities Impact Assessment to identify how we can bring greater diversity into grant decision making.
We mostly provide restricted funding for specific projects that meet the aims of each fund. However, where possible we aim to enable some contribution towards the organisation’s core operating costs, clearly stating what proportion or core funding categories can also be covered, whether overheads or staff time. We ask for a breakdown of spend categories including core costs.
We are flexible in our funding, recognising challenges occur, requiring changes to the best well-laid project plans. We ask funded organisations to report progress including spend and work with them to reallocate budget when needed, to new areas, or if under-spent beyond the grant fund period to help with the legacy of the fund.
As a charity ourselves, we recognise the benefit of unrestricted funding and will explore this where possible depending on the ambitions and type of fund.
We aim to make reporting proportionate to the fund amount and be transparent in this at the outset. We aim to work flexibly with each organisation if changes are needed to their budget or the scope of their project.
We’ll collect feedback on our approach and make improvements over time.
We will communicate well throughout. For example:
? Clear communication throughout the grant fund application process.
? Using plain, jargon-free English to ensure accessibility.
? Explaining the purpose of the grant fund and the reason for the information we need to collect.
? Having a dedicated point of contact in the team.
? Setting out the reporting approach including type of reporting, timings, and templates.
? Running through the grant agreement together at the outset, setting out the reporting approach.
? Setting out Hubbub’s role versus that of any other partner organisations at the outset – setting out what support we can realistically offer, while always aiming to work collaboratively.
? Responding promptly to funding queries and giving useful feedback on any grant reporting, where possible.
? Working jointly to amplify the impact of the fund and communicate this externally to raise the profile of the funded organisation’s work.
We’ll continue to seek feedback to identify where we could have communicated even more effectively.
As we primarily provide funding for specific restricted projects, these will require some specific reporting to measure their impact and capture learnings, but we will aim to make this proportionate to the grant fund amount and nature of the fund.
We will aim to outline the reporting requirements at the application stage, clearly stating these in the FAQs and grant criteria, for full transparency. We’ll be explicit about the information we need organisations to capture throughout their project.
For small community grants this may be a simple form to provide key stats and an optional open question, or phone call. For larger funds and innovation funds this may be a quarterly call or short reporting form to capture progress, risks, and learnings.
We’ll aim to work flexibly with the funded organisations if they have any challenges with reporting, offering alternative methods – and providing feedback on reporting where we can.
All guidance notes clearly explain what will and will not be funded.
additional support/guidance from the Funding & grants Officer.
Each application form is designed with the funder to ensure questions are clear and relevant to the fund.
We work with our Trustees to agree an approach to risk that ensures we fund a range of organisations, including smaller grassroots groups that may inherently carry more risk. We accept that, even when things don?t go to plan, this represents a learning opportunity.
Our Starter Grant applications are accepted on a rolling basis. They are reviewed by the panel within 2 weeks of receiving the application.
We let applicants know the outcome of the panel decision within 5 working days of the panel date.
We publish our annual report each year which details all applications received and the reasons they are successful or unsuccessful.
All unsuccessful applicants are given detailed feedback on the reasons why they weren’t successful.
Our Starter Grant offers unrestricted funding.
We respond to changes/challenges within the sector e.g. increasing funding amount in response to the Cost of Living Crisis or setting up a Coronavirus Grassroots Fund during the pandemic.
We set out in our guidance notes for each grant what applicants can expect from us (time commitment, process if unhappy with decision, main contact for application support).
Out grant agreement outlines the expectations between applicant and ourselves.
The reporting requirements are outlined in the guidance notes.
We work with funders to design end of grant reports which are proportionate to the amount awarded.
We use drop down boxes on the end of grant reports where possible.
https://www.hyde-housing.co.uk/corporate/our-social-purpose/hyde-charitable-trust/
We will be clear about our funding criteria, priorities and requirements.
We will explore ways to receive regular feedback about our work and we will act on what we are told.
We will learn from the issues identified by #FixTheForm and implement as many tips as possible in our monitoring reports.
We will take responsibility for compiling information on applicants from publicly held records (e.g., accounts from the Charity Commission).
We will review our application and monitoring forms.
We will seek feedback from our grantees and partners and include them in the design of the future application and monitoring forms.
In light of the recent pandemic and the current cost of living crisis, we will review ?what good looks like? in relation to, e.g., reserve levels, sustainability of provision and budget requirements. We will share this with our applicants.
We will review if we can reduce the amount of compliance documentation.
We will publish timescales on our website (i.e., will make our decisions within 10 weeks of receiving an application). If we have problems meeting our timescales, we get extra help rather than giving applicants less time, changing their deadlines or making them wait longer.
We will publish our grant data on 360Giving. We will continue to publish an annual impact report that includes application and grant analysis.
We will describe our decision-making processes in the applicant guide.
We will give feedback to unsuccessful applicants.
We will explore how we can contribute towards the core costs of an organisation, not just to direct delivery costs.
We will be as flexible and responsive to our grantees? needs and changing circumstances as possible.
We are a relational funder, and each organisation we fund and individual we support has a dedicated contact person.
We will create an environment for grantees to safely raise challenges in their grant relationship with us.
We will use as many ?tick box? fields as possible.
We will only request relevant information in our monitoring reports.
We will explore how we could enable our grantees to submit a monitoring report they have written for other funders.
https://www.hymans.co.uk/why-hymans/corporate-social-responsibility/
We invite funding applications from charitable organisations we have identified as sharing our priorities and we provide guidance on process and eligibility. We ensure that grantees are aware of our grant cycle, and we operate a timely, efficient application and funding process.
We are clear in our funding decisions and reporting requirements. Our application process is streamlined and concise. We only collect information that is relevant, and we regularly review our processes and seek feedback from grantees to ensure best practice.
We recognise that there is always risk. We take a proportionate approach to due diligence and risk management in our multi-year and annual grant partnerships. We meet regularly with all grant partners to foster an open and trusting relationship and ensure that any risks are quickly identified and appropriately mitigated.
We are committed to listening to our grant partners and responding in a timely manner. We make decisions quickly and communicate regularly with our partners.
We are open and transparent in our values, our ambitions, and our expectations of our funded relationships to meet our shared objectives. We have improved the diversity of our Trustee Board. We publish our Board Meeting Minutes and our Annual Report online on our website. We invite our grant partners to present to the Board on a rotating basis.
Our multi-year grants are for a minimum of three years and include an additional 10% unrestricted funds for SME grant partners. We are flexible to changing requirements and meet regularly with grant partners to ensure funding and reporting requirements are appropriate and grants continue to add value where most relevant. We appreciate that staffing may change in organisations, and we provide regular updates (on Board meetings, reporting cycles) to ensure that grant partners remain informed.
We clearly communicate criteria for our different grants at each stage and all multi-year partners sign a grant agreement clearing stating delivery and reporting expectations. Reporting is against these agreements. We meet regularly with grant partners and encourage them to engage with us outside these milestones whenever they have any questions or updates.
We ensure our reporting requirements are clearly communicated and accessible to grant partners at the start of each funding period. We have developed our reporting process to ensure this is proportionate and light-touch. Multi-year partners report annually, and all other grant partners provide 6-monthly reports. We also encourage grant partners to contact us out with these reporting points.
We spend a lot of time with the charity partners we fund as we are a capacity building funder. We want all our work to help them drive towards better and more outcomes for the young people they support.
Our relationship with our grantees is all about an open, trusting and challenging partnership. We see ourselves as a critical friend. We ask a lot of questions: we do this not to serve any agenda of our own, but to drive impact in their organisation.
We accept that there is a certain amount of risk in working with philanthropic organisations and we have extended our appetite for risk over the last few years for bringing in more diverse types of organisations and leaders. That said, we do try and mitigate risk with a well codified programme of investment.
We are well aware of the level of need in our target population and that the need for those young people and the number of young people are growing, so we try to bring urgency to our work in terms of growing the number of organisations we can work with. That said, our model is about long term investment as we know driving change and delivering better outcomes for young people is hard work that often requires lots of time and investment. That is why we are long-term funders.
Our partnerships with our charities is completely reliant on an open and trusting relationship – being open and brave are part of our values. We also work hard to be open with our donors and the external world as we want to encourage other donors to allow charities to share their challenges and barriers to success. We don’t believe it is possible to drive change without this kind of openness.
While our funding agreements lay out a number of milestones that our grantees should meet to access our funding, we have open dialogues with them throughout the period of partnerships and we are open to flexing when necessary.
Building relationships which rely on communication are core to our model and values.
We are working hard not to put undue burden on charities that we are considering to fund; therefore, we try and take the lion’s share of the work that our due diligence requires away from the charity. Our applications should only take an hour to fill out and when charities are formally in our due diligence, they will have a good chance of getting our funding. We also work hard to make sure that our due diligence adds value even before we fund an organisation.
? We make time to talk to applicants who have submitted a promising initial enquiry and explore the fit between their work and our priorities.
? We keep our approach and our materials simple, using plain language.
? We publish our priorities, requirements, exclusions on our website to ensure applicants can make quick judgements about eligibility, fit and timescales.
We use a two-stage process, and we keep each stage simple. The first stage is usually a four paragraph email. The second stage is free-flowing text (no set boxes or templates) of four to six pages (excluding attachments), which we ask covers a small number of key areas. We also make use of publicly available annual reports and accounts as we are aware of the time and effort required to prepare an application. Prior to making a grant decision, we may ask to meet with applicants to better understand their area of work and to get to know the organisation and key members of staff.
We are comfortable accepting a reasonable level of carefully considered risk. For instance, we have supported a number of new start-up organisations. We generally aim to help grantees build stronger, more sustainable organisations, not deliver specific outputs. We recognise that there may be changes to an organisation or their plan for delivery and include reference to this in our grant agreements.
? Under our financial integrity focus area, we accept applications at any time and take them to one of the three decision-making board meetings throughout the year.
? We respond to initial enquiries within 6 weeks to let applicants know if they can submit a full application.
? We get back to applicants with grant decisions within a week of board meetings.
? We reply quickly to emails and make time to talk to applicants.
? We respond quickly and with understanding to requests for extensions to reporting deadlines.
? We provide substantial replies to all reports we receive within one month of receiving them over 95% of the time.
? We provide constructive feedback to applicants, including substantial reasons for rejections, where a full application has been put to the board of trustees.
? We publish our grants data using the 360giving standard.
? We publish grant data on our website.
? We publish the numbers of applications and success rates on our website.
? We are open to public reviews through Grant Advisor UK.
? We are clear and transparent about any changes in our grant-making approach, including publishing updates on our website.
? We provide most of our grants for core costs (subject to charitable purposes).
? We discuss the possibility of unrestricted funding with grantees, with a view to providing this where helpful (subject to charitable purposes).
? We agree on 2 or 3 high-level outcomes with grantees.
? We do not micro-manage at the level of activities or detailed budgets, and we do not expect reports at this level.
? We respond quickly to requests to change the use of our grants, with a preference to agree on the changes.
? We aim to be responsive to the external environment, for example by reviewing our maximum grant size in relation to inflation.
? We sign a simple Grant Agreement with our grantees. It sets out our main expectations, e.g. around reporting and safeguarding.
? We draft the document, invite comments on it and are happy to make amendments before grantees sign it.
? We aim to build supportive personal relationships with key leaders in grantee organisations, recognising how busy they are and how tough their jobs are.
? We ask for annual feedback from grantees about their experience of working with us and publish the results on our website.
? Wherever possible, we have honest conversations about the prospect of future funding, so that grantees can plan effectively.
We keep our reporting light touch, usually asking for a maximum of four pages every 12 months. We do not require set templates but ask grantees to cover a handful of key issues that outline progress to date and the reasons for any changes to the original plan. The Trust is happy to receive reports that have been prepared for other purposes (such as for other donors or annual reports), so long as they provide sufficient detail on the issues covered by our grant. We aim to meet grantees annually, in person at their offices or online, and attend their events where possible.
? We provide unsuccessful applicants at each stage of our application process with feedback on our decision to reject them.
? We review our funding guidelines annually, ensuring that everything on our website is aligned to our guidelines and application forms. Our funding guidelines make clear what we do and don?t fund and includes a FAQs section too. The guidelines that we publish externally are the same as the ones we use to assess applications against.
? At our monthly review meetings for first stage applications we consider the ways in which our feedback to unsuccessful applicants may be as a result of our guidelines not being clear enough. With applicants moving to second stage, we share any questions or queries we have about their application, so that they can address these.
? We offer pre-application advice on a one-to-one basis and for groups over email, telephone and in person (over video).
? We signed up to #FixTheForm, which means that our full two-stage application process and the questions that this involves can be viewed before making an application.
? We have a page on our website which outlines our reporting requirements and when grants payments (including the first payment) will be made, so that organisations can use this to inform their decision making.
? We have a two stage process and all the questions that we ask and information that we collect is used to inform our decision making, and to identify trends about the reach of our applications in terms of cause/art form/collection type, geography, and organisation type and size.
? We ask four main questions at first stage, alongside basic organisation information at stage one. At stage two we ask for a written application covering four questions, alongside more detailed information about the organisation?s safeguarding and their finances. We then conduct an in person (over video) conversation with the applicant to discuss their application further before making a decision. Our written applications are short (two page at first stage, four page at second stage), and so the conversation allows for a deeper discussion about the organisation and its application.
? The quality of our application process has been independently assessed by nfpResearch through a Perception Audit (which compries a survey and deeper dive interviews with applicants and grant-holders). We undertake this assessment every two to three years.
? We review our approach to risk through Board discussion and inform our Trustees of key trends to support their assessment of risk, e.g, on reserves levels, governance etc.
? We offer core costs funding in the main, although project funding is available if requested. We trust organisations to use our money well and ask for an annual progress report, where we ask four key questions. As a core costs funder this also allows us to demonstrate further flexibility should an organisation’s plans and needs change due to external circumstances.
? We have a risk statement included in our Annual Report and Accounts.
? Our timetable for our main grants programme is published on our website and the timetable for our Museums and Galleries Fund. We have reviewed our Museums and Galleries Fund timeline and reduced the length of this by three months this year, and we will continue to keep this under review.
? Two trustees meet on a monthly basis to review first stage applications and the Board meets every two months to decide on second stage applications. The decisions taken are communicated to applicants formally within one week.
? We offer support to applicants as needed and in a timely way and always offer feedback.
? All applications are acknowledged as soon as they received, with a note as to when they will hear back.
? All applicants are provided with feedback on our reasons for rejecting or accepting an application.
? We publish our success rates in our annual report and a summary of the main reasons for rejecting applications.
? We publish our success rates in the funding guidelines.
? We have data and information, including via the DEI Data Standard (which we are signed up to), which allows us to do a deeper dive into the types of applications we are rejecting.
? All of our grants made are published to our website and to 360Giving. Our grants made in each financial year are published in our Annual Report and Accounts.
? All our funding is for core funding towards core costs and unrestricted core funding, unless project funding is specifically requested.
? We review our definition of core costs regularly, at least annually via the funding guidelines review process, and regularly discuss with our Board, team and applicants our commitment to providing unrestricted core funding.
? We publish the number of grants made each year that are for core costs or for unrestricted – it is worth noting that the unrestricted figure is increasing year on year.
? Our grant offer letter ? which is sent via email ? states who in the team will be the point of contact for the grant-holder and they are provided with that person?s contact details. The offer letter also outlines the reporting requirements for the grant-holder. As part of their second stage application process, they are also introduced to our Grants Officer, thus providing them with another point of contact in the team should they need it during the lifetime of their grant. Our contact details and staff bios are publicly available.
? For all new grant-holders, after six months the manager of their grant gets in touch to check that everything is going alright and to offer them a chat should they need to.
? The progress reporting process is clearly outlined by our Grants Officer and on our website, and grant-holders are provided with reminders well in advance, as well as the option to discuss altering the reporting as needed. Issues, the need to change the grant usage etc. are all things that we are happy to support on a case by case basis and in discussion with the grant-holder.
? The quality of our progress reporting process has been independently audited through a Perception Survey led by nfpResearch. We ask for annual reporting only, and ask four questions for grantees to report back on. We do not offer a template, beyond just the four questions and guidance of the report being no more than four pages.
? We conduct group reviews of Progress and Final Reports that the Grants Team processes and signs off, in order to spot trends, recurring themes etc. more easily and discuss the ways in which we may wish to support/respond to these.
? The reporting requirements are outlined on our website for applicants to review before deciding to make an application.
? We use our website to clearly explain the parameters of each of our grant funds and the requirements for application. We provide clear detail on what we do not fund.
? We ask for feedback on our online forms from applicants and review annually, updating where necessary.
? We have eligibility checkers before the application process to ensure all those who apply to the Charity fulfil our basic requirements.
? For larger grants we use a two-stage application process and will not ask you to complete a full application if we do not think your proposal is in the strong place it needs to be for consideration by the Charity’s Trustee.
? We use a two-stage process for larger grants and meet with all applicants prior to sending the stage two application to ensure that we only take forward those requests which have real potential of funding.
? We regularly review applications to ensure we are receiving the information we need and that all information provided is utilised.
? We only collect information which is required to make a funding decision or to aid us to support organisations over the longer term (e.g. capacity building needs, intelligence on activities within our Beneficial Area.).
? We recognise that the current climate has put an immense strain on organisations and therefore some may not be as financially secure as they expect to be, or be operating with the same level of efficiency due to resourcing changes (staff shortages etc.).
? When grantees’ delivery plans change significantly we are open to discussing this and will explore adjusting the grant purpose if required.
? We will discuss potential risks with you prior to a funding decision to ensure our Trustee make an informed decision.
? We will acknowledge all proposals within a month of receipt.
? With full applications, we are clear on our deadlines and explain the rationale behind them, offering flexibility when possible should a grantee require it.
? Applications to the SHAF are considered within two weeks of the holiday deadline, with all applications receiving a decision within a month of application.
? We endeavour to provide relevant feedback to grantees when their proposals are declined.
? We meet with applicants to discuss their applications and explain when a grant proposal cannot be taken to the second stage. If there is the potential to do so, we explain how an applicant can overcome these challenges to ensure future applications are successful.
? We are open to core and unrestricted funding within our grant parameters (age range/Beneficial Area).
? We make ourselves readily available to grantees to discuss unexpected challenges/changing needs and will be flexible in helping the grantee meet these.
? We provide a contribution to overheads as part of direct project funding.
? Where appropriate, we will provide further support to our grantees to ensure they remain viable organisations for the future.
? We demonstrate the type of relationship we like from the outset and explain that as a funder we are here to support the grantee.
? We strive to be an approachable and contactable grantmaker to allow grantees the freedom to discuss their challenges or concerns as openly as possible.
? We only ask applicants for the information necessary to obtain approval for the release of further tranches or to support JLC?s intelligence gathering on our Beneficial Area.
? Reporting is proportionate to the size of the grant received.
? Reporting requirements are explained on the grant contract at the time of award and reporting forms are made available to grantees two months before the report is due.
? Reporting requirements are reviewed on an annual basis to ensure they remain proportionate and relevant.
Our priorities, exceptions and procedures are stated on our website and pamphlets. Before sending a link to our application form, we ask potential applicants to contact us by email or phone to discuss whether their proposal/organisation stands any chance of being considered for funding by our trustees. We then have a two stage process. Initially we ask for basic organisational details and answers to five questions about the organisation and what it wants funding for. If the application is then shortlisted, we ask for further documentation and then hold an assessment meeting with the applicant to get a more complete understanding before a final decision is made.
We have reduced the number of questions in stage one of the application process. Our assessment interviews are semi-structured so that the applicant has the opportunity to explain what is relevant and important to them.
We target local, grassroots applicants and accept that they do not always have the same capacity as larger organisations. We will still consider poorly written and constructed applications and take time to fully understand who they are and what they do. We provide post-grant support to help build up groups’ capacity and their ability to deliver effectively according to the needs of the people they are trying to help
We have reduced our decision-making timescales by increasing the number of shortlisting exercises we do. Where there is urgent need, our trustees will consider making quick decisions outside the normal cycle of meetings
We publish all our grants in our annual accounts and on GrantNav. Statistical information about success rates is also in our accounts and more fully on our website. We also offer full feedback to unsuccessful applicants.
Although our grants are often made for the specific purpose given by the applicant, we are happy to adapt this at the request of the grantee, if needs or circumstances change
We clearly explain the application process and the purpose and requirements of our post-grant support. We ask applicants for feedback on the process, which will then feed in to the regualr reviews of our policies and procedures.
As most of our applicants and grantees have limited capacity, we constantly review all our procedures to ensure they are not putting an unnecessary burden on them. For example, in monitoring reports, if a group is already reporting to another funder, we will ask them to send us the same report.
? We offer conversations with potential applicants to discuss their ideas.
? We offer to review draft applications.
? We give clear feedback on why we have, or have not, supported an application.
? We use a ?Funder Plus? model to offer support and development assistance to grantees and applicants.
? Piloting use of Yorkshire Common Application Form (YCAF)
? Our application form asks only those questions we believe to be essential.
? We seek additional information only when we need to.
? We supplement our knowledge through public sources (e.g. Charity Commission, Companies House, applicant website / social media).
? A sample of applications are then reviewed by an Advisory Group of people with lived experience of living on low incomes.
? We have updated our application forms following feedback.
? We adopt a broad view of risk, including an understanding of an applicant?s financial literacy and planning. We also consider financial; safeguarding/health and safety; reputation, and the potential of success balanced against the need to innovate.
? We use a ?strengths-based? assessment, looking at characteristics such as resilience and forward-thinking.
? We ask applicants how they will deliver their work, but do not request detailed activity plans.
? We give clear feedback on why we have, or have not, supported an application.
? We commit to making decisions within published timescales.
? We communicate decisions to applicants within 24 hours of decisions being made. We then follow this promptly with feedback on why we have, or have not, supported an application.
? We respond to requests to vary grant conditions as quickly as possible.
? We publish records of our decisions through 360 Giving.
? We give feedback to all applicants, including successful grantees.
? We review our grant-making practice annually.
? We share practice with other local funders through the Yorkshire Funders Forum
? We will consider requests for core operating costs as well as project funding.
? We will respond constructively to any requests to vary delivery, timescales etc.
? We use a ?Funder Plus? model to offer support and development assistance to grantees and applicants.
? We are reviewing our approach and model of grant making to ensure it best meets the needs of York communities.
? We encourage grantees to talk with us to build mutual understanding.
? We set out clear expectations regarding reporting at an early stage in the process.
? We visit a sample of funded organisations to learn about the work.
? We actively involve ourselves in the life of the VCS (Voluntary and Community Sector) in York, where our grants are made.
? We ask for a single brief report at the completion of a grant.
? Our reporting is designed as a learning exercise for grantees and us as a funder.
? Each report is reviewed by a member of the decision-making committee, and feedback is shared with the grantee.
? All reports are reflected on during our annual review of grant-making practice.
If required, speak to all prospective applicants before they apply to make sure applications are relevant. We will regularly review our grant criteria to ensure clarity.
Wherever possible, make time to review application forms and answer any questions with applicants, if they require, prior to submission. We will review our application forms, for potential duplication, regularly.
Show an understanding of the funding challenges faced by many and be prepared to fund organisations that may not be able to show long term financial stability.
Make payments for successful applicants within 2 weeks of agreement.
Ensure reasons for all decisions are recorded and offer to discuss feedback with each unsuccessful applicant.
Be prepared to listen to grantees about changing usage for funds and indeed we helped many in this process over the last year.
Within project grants, we aim to make funding as flexible as possible including contributions to overhead costs, staffing costs etc.
Make sure that each applicant will have a grant manager who will be available from application, through the decision making process and for assistance through the life of the grant.
Not ask long term projects to report more regularly than every 6 months and we will not ask short term projects to report more than once.
We will not impose our own outcome measurements on our grantees but will instead ask for their chosen monitoring and evaluation methodology.
We try to be as clear as possible about who/what we will and will not fund – we have a simple eligibility checker to help with this. We encourage would-be applicants to book a 1:1 advice session with us, advertised on our website. We introduced an annual application route for grantees we have a good history with – one form per year which is considered for funding at every possible panel in the comming 12 months, moving those groups off of a cycle of repeat applying three or four times a year. We keep our form/s as precise as possible, and regularly review the questions we ask for usefulness. We keep our impact measurement as light touch as possible – and share the questions with grantees when the grant goes out. Going forwards, we are about to introduce an upper income level for all applicants as we talk a lot about preferring to fund small local grassroots groups, but do also sometimes support much larger applicants, so what has happened is that informally we have been de-prioritising applications from bigger organisations, especially as demand for our funding has increased. We realise this is not fair, and it is better to be honest at the outset about this preference, which we will actually set as a criteria and incorporate into our eligibility checker.
We regularly – I’d estimate quarterly – review our application forms. For example, we had for years asked a sustainability question – how will you ensure this work continues when our grant runs out kind of thing – which we realised was not necessary or helpful. We know very well how challenging it is for community groups to secure multi-year funding, so much work is only ever guaranteed for a limited period (usually 12 months).
We realised that our concern/focus should only be “is this organisation viable for the duration of any grant we might award”. This is what we assess applications on and so we removed the sustainability question completely. We try to use friendly and encouraging language, for example – “Tell us why you’re the best people to do this work …” rather than arms-length form-speak. Generally we focus on the “what” and the “why”, occasionally some donors will require additional detail. We are in the design stage for a new application database, so going forwards we will have complete control over all questions on the form, which will improve things further – currently some parts of the form are set centrally (three questions about geography for example, which is repetitive).
We have a robust attitude to risk – our Micro Groups Route is specifically designed for small organisations which have not been grant-funded before, and have no/very limited track record, or are only just emerging which presents a higher risk than more established grantees. funding new-to-us-organisations is one of our key grant-making targets. We also run a social loan prgramme (part loan/part grant) which has a very positive attitude to risky propositions – the scheme was established in partnership with our county council to provide loan finance to social actors who would not be able to secure support on the high street. Bad debt does, as a consequence happen, although not that often and is an accepted part of the process. We are happy to fund “core costs” (but have had to define across KCF what we mean by this – ongoing service delivery costs) and trust organisations to spend grants where there is most need – we do not over-engineer grant agreements and wherever appropriate try to be as light touch in terms of restricting spend as possible.
We publish and keep to decision deadlines, we send out regrets monthly, so unsuccessful applicants aren’t kept hanging around unnecessarily. We make decisions on our micro groups route applications within a month of receiving them, wherever possible. Other applications for larger amounts take longer – this is all publicised. We deal with all requests for pre-application support, by phone or email, within two working days.
We are accessbile and supportive – if we spot a “diamond in the rough”, we may spend considerable time getting the applicant “grant-ready”, we operate a funder-plus model where we have funding surgeries – our own or in partnership with other funders – we share resources and information, we have networking events to bring the sector together etc. We are a place-based grant-maker that is highly visible in the county – we visit hundreds of applicants face to face every year. We run anonymous satisfaction surveys annually, and ask for feedback on every application, which we then analyse and use to make improvements. In terms of feedback, we are always happy to provide bespoke details to unsuccessful applicants, and mention this in the standard regrets email. Many groups take us up on this. It’s time-consumking but valuable in terms of strengthening the capacity of the sector and hopefully helping groups secure funding in the future. We could be better at sharing data on our regrets rates/reasons externally, this is something we will address.
I feel we are very strong on this – the majority of our funding that goes out under our annual route is for ongoing service delivery costs (core costs) and we do not require much detail about the specific spend (contribution to part-time client-facing co-ordinator costs, or contribution towards office rental and utilites cost, for example). We have “trained” our panels to see the value in this approach. Once a grant is live we are always happy to consider a re-profiling to deal with an unexpected circumstance, or help with an unanticipated problem – we are as flexible as we can be. We regularly extend spend deadlines, when work does not pan out as hoped for. One of our key targets is to try and increase the number of multi-year grants we are making, this is challenging as the “fund for 12 months” mantra is incredibly deeply-embedded across grant-making generally. We are proud, however, to have launched our third cohort of multi-year grants this year (one group per district funded to a total of c£31K across three years). We hope to extend this approach across more of our funds.
We have recently reviewed our award announcement (the “contract” that every grantee has to agree to upon receipt of a grant) to remove arcane legal language that nobody understood and replace it with a few simple principles of engagement. We try to be mindful and clear in all of our communications. When the (very) occasional complaint comes in, we deal with it promptly, compassionately (realising in a way it’s quite brave to stick your neck out like that) and with self-critical eyes, to see what the crux of the problem is, and how we can address it.
We are very mindful that our average grant is small – c.£4.5K, with our micro grants being only up to £2K – so we try not to burden applicants (often new to applying for grants, often part-time and stressed, often volunteers) with anything unnecessary. I’ve mentioned how this impacts the application process, and equaly, at the end of the grant, we keep impact/difference made communication down to the bare essentials. Our impact statement is literally one side with three tick boxes on it (which is then very easy to aggregate!) – we do also ask a few budget type questions, numbers of beneficiaires etc, case study or photo, but the impact statement is very simple. We also encourage impact videos, which some of our more creative grantees love.
We currently have little information on our website about our grant programmes, or our grant-making priorities. We are in the process of developing clear documentation defining the scope of our three grant programmes which will be published on our new website alongside a FAQ. We will invite potential applicants to contact us with any questions and can update our website with commonly asked questions as they come in
We will be implementing a two stage application process with initial brief EOI. We expect the majority of applicants to stage 2 to be successful in their full applications. We are starting from scratch in the design of each application form and won?t be asking generic questions which we can easily research ourselves from website/charity commission
We don?t require detailed activity plans or work-plans. We will match or fully-fund projects. We are flexible around delivery timescales
We aim to review all EOI?s within a set timeframe, and provide clear timeframes for when charities will receive decisions from us
We currently provide detailed feedback either by phone or email and will continue to provide feedback in future. We will start to collate rejection rates for different reasons for each stage of the process
Most of our funding is focused on specific project delivery. However within this, we are flexible if project plans/timescales need to altered or be delayed. If we identify charities or projects which particularly meet our strategic priorities we will proactively contact them and co-design funding proposals with them
We develop working relationships with grant holders, often with a short video call when a project is funded to establish what information we will need from them as the project develops. We aim to provide added value to our grants, often through pro-bono support and brokering other donations of materials or finance. We aim to develop honest and open relationships with charities.
We are in the process of redesigning our reporting processes to be light-touch and proportionate. We will undertake some research to gather feedback from charities on their engagement with us to better understand if we are being proportionate in our reporting requirements.
Streamlining applications and avoiding requests for information that is widely available.
Only ask application questions that directly relate to our assessment criteria. Only ask for essential reporting information.
Take into account the circumstances of the charity as a whole.
Improve the accessibility and transparency of our grant round materials and grant-giving.
Create an effective and positive relationship with our grantees, so that they inform us of challenges at an early stage.
We hold open grants briefings , and offer support calls to applicants ahead of application to explain each fund and eligibility requirements ahead of applying for funding.
We review our application form for all funding programmes and make sure we only ask what we need to for the purposes of making a decision or gaining learning that will help us design better programmes in future.
We regularly fund organisations offering support alongside to mitigate risk and do not penalise charities from future funding because they haven?t used a grant as they initially said they would.
Refresh of our website and grant criteria templates to make communication simpler and more engaging for potential applicants.
Be clear with applicants why we require monitoring information and how it helps us to secure more investment into the sector.
We change our application forms and monitoring for funding programmes proportionate to the grant size and organisation size.
We are now two years into our five year strategy (2020-2025) and have recently reviewed and updated our funding guidelines. We recognise that we can do more to be clear with people about what and how we fund, to support organisations to make strategic fundraising decisions.
? We will publish further information on eligibility and exclusions for funding on our website, including case studies of what we fund.
? We will aim to publish timelines for our funding programmes at least three months before the application deadline, where applicable.
? We will be more proactive about raising awareness publicly about our grant deadlines.
? We will review and amend the information about how people can get in touch with us to be clearer and more encouraging.
? As part of a wider digital transformation, we will review and update our application and grant management systems and processes to improve people?s experience and minimise the time required from people who engage with us.
We are undergoing a wider digital transformation, with dedicated resource to review and update our processes to ensure these reflect as far as possible the open and trusting funder we want to be, including our application processes.
? We will reflect on and seek to minimise the level of financial information required during the initial application stages.
? We will be clearer publicly about why we ask the questions we do and what the purpose is.
? We will establish a 2-stage application process for the Justice First Fellowship, to introduce more consistency with other grant programmes
? We will log the number of calls from prospective grant applicants to track what proportion we speak to before application and reflect on how well this is working and what can be improved
We are conscious that in our day-to-day work it is essential to consider fundamentals such as financial risk, risk of fraud and reputational risk involved with some grants, but also risks particular to philanthropy, to the work of the Foundation and what we are trying to achieve. We are always conscious of the risks involved with reinforcing the status quo, of not being innovative or effective, or of passing on risk to those we are striving to support.
? We will seek to be clearer with people applying and receiving grants about how we assess risks
? We will undertake further work with our grants committee on recognising and managing risks
? We will be bolder in the range of organisations we fund
We recognise that our processes and timeframes need to reflect the needs of the organisations that apply to us for funding and commit to acting in a timely manner.
? We will discuss and agree realistic internal targets for responding to queries and applications
? As part of our wider digital transformation process, we will review and resolve internal grant application and management processes that have caused delays
We recognise there is more we can do to be transparent about our decisions:
? We will publish our success rates
? We will publish our grants data from the current strategy through 360Giving
? We will reflect further internally on applications that have been refused and what we can do to minimise the number of applications we turn down at each stage
? We will offer more proactive, tailored feedback to organisations who apply unsuccessfully at the first stage. We will track who is asking for feedback and reflect on how we can improve this.
We strive to be flexible in how we fund and how we manage relationships with the organisations we fund. However, we know that these messages need to be regularly reinforced in order to be heard and understood.
? We will provide more clarity to both grant applicants and recipients on what we mean by flexibility/ being a flexible funder
? We will reflect on the core/ unrestricted funding we offer and how we can increase this
We recognise that the focus of the organisations we fund should be their direct and frontline work to achieve their strategic objectives, rather than managing their grant with us.
? We will reflect on our grant management processes and how they can be clearer and less onerous for organisations applying for grants and organisations we fund (for example, publishing more written guidance on the relationship, while emphasising the flexibility within this)
We strive to ensure our reporting requirements are proportionate, mutually useful and fit for purpose and recognise there is more work we can do to achieve this.
? As part of our digital transformation, we will review and revise our online reporting processes to ensure they are clear and accessible, including accepting attachments of other reports where these contain information and reflections relevant to the grant.
? We will seek to further align our reporting requirements across our grant programmes and collaborations.
? We will provide written and verbal guidance on our reporting processes.
We have a two-stage process so that we can sift out applications which do not fit the criteria very quickly. Those that are taken forward do not have to fill in any more forms but have conversations with our team instead. Our criteria is narrow but well-defined. We have introduced pre-application meetings with potential applicants to enable them to chat with a member of the Grants Team to discuss their work, and whether or not it is a likely fit with the programme aims.
We have distilled our application form down to six main questions. We have based this on an internal evaluation of the previous round to eradicate duplication. The applicant does not fill in any further forms. We talk to the charity and complete any further paperwork in house. We use a SWOT analysis completed by the Regional Manager which is peer reviewed to reduce bias.
We are providing fully unrestricted funds which can be used to build back reserves. We are actively funding charities that are facing financial risk and have very little reserves where they are strategically important in their communities either because they are specialists in their field or they are working with minoritised communities. We acknowledge risk and provide organisational development support where the charity would like to access it, this might be fundraising support, governance, finance etc. The funds do not need to be spent within a time period.
We have returned to a grant round programme. We have increased the number of decision points to increase the speed of response, with those going through all stages of the process, getting a decision within 4 months of the programme closing date.
We provide feedback to all applicants. The further the applicant progresses through the process the more detailed the feedback provided will be. Regional Managers contact any rejected applicants that went to full stage assessment to discuss the decision post panel.
We share our grants data with 360Giving, and on our website. We have migrated to Salesforce and we will adopt (when finalised) the EDI taxonomy from 360Giving so we can interrogate our data and look for and address any biases.
We aim to publish our success rates but we will be launching 3 new programmes in 2023, and therefore don?t currently have the data available.
We provide unrestricted funds which can be spent on anything the charity needs.
We consider ourselves a relationship based funder and commit to adding value to charities throughout all our interactions with them. When we ask charities to engage with us for our benefit, we pay them a donation for their time. Where they attend events we pay their expenses.
Each charity has a specific Regional Manager who develops a trusted relationship with them over time. Regional Managers can access a range of (external) organisational development options to support charities to grow stronger and become more fundable. Although we are in contact with charities regularly, the focus on funder requirements is by exception, the benefit should be for the charity. We are very careful that we do not overburden charities with unnecessary communication and surveys etc.
We have removed outcomes and objectives from the application forms.
In asking charities about their organisation at application stage, we will accept links to their website rather than requiring them to provide narrative information.
We have reviewed our monitoring requirements and ask for:
? A short annual monitoring form
? Feedback surveys for individual development support projects
? A mid-grant learning conversation led by Regional Managers
Each of these elements serves a different learning objective – the overall aim of the framework is to balance collecting the most urgent information the Foundation needs to learn and improve, while minimising the burden of reporting for grantees.
We analyse the monitoring information quarterly, via a cross Foundation group, to look for trends and feed these back to the sector. We are committed to using the data a charity would normally collect rather than asking for specific outcomes.
Before the opening of a new round of a programme, if there has been a previous round, the LCF team review common reasons for rejection and consider whether there are any amendments required to the application form and/or criteria to deter any ineligible applicants/proposed projects from these findings.
We are reviewing more widely how we can be clearer with our standard eligibility across LCF programmes.
Where capacity allows, we invite applicants to speak with staff (either through questions at a ?meet the funder? event, or 1-2-1s), to talk through ideas prior to submitting an application.
Only necessary information is asked within our application forms. Multiple points of review and testing of the application form are conducted before an online application form goes live.
We have introduced a financial projection template to seek further information on applicants? financial position at the time of application as we are aware that organisations are likely to be in a more financially precarious position than prior to the pandemic. LCF will take this into consideration in assessment and decision making.
During deployment of our emergency funds, at one stage we were able to make payments to successful applicants in an average of 4.3days of their application being received on the LCRF portal. This turnaround time was made possible through partnership work and a number of digital and process efficiencies introduced ? out of necessity due to our remote working and elements specifically incorporated to deliver the Emergency Funding programme via the LCRF partnership. Our team are working to identify which elements of the new processes introduced will transfer to our business-as-usual processes and developing new processes to support this to improve our overall processes.
We publish our timelines of when applicants will receive decisions as part of our funding guidelines. We have piloted ? and will be reviewing ? how we can alert organisations who are not taken forward to the shortlisting stage, earlier.
We have published all our Emergency Fund grant-making on 360Giving and are working on the processes to enable the publication of all our funds over the next 12 months.
We have collected the application data submitted via LCRF and are using this to better inform our continuing grant-making on future waves of LCRF funding. We have used this information to identify priority areas in which we have not committed as much funding towards.
Wherever our donor directed funding allows, we are able to support grantees in granting project variations/extensions.
In attracting new donors, we use the evidence collected within our Voices on the Frontline (2019) report and knowledge of grassroots groups to make the case to direct funding towards core costs. Where there is project funding, we endeavour to support an element of contribution towards core costs.
Whenever possible, we outline the expectations of the monitoring within the Grant Agreement right at the beginning of the funding relationship so funded groups are clear as to what the requirements in connection with their grant are. The template for the monitoring form is ordinarily in place prior to the Grant Agreement being sent to grantees, so they are able to see the form they will be asked to complete and ensure they have the systems in place to undertake the required data collection.
We try to establish a clear and transparent relationship with our grantees ? encouraging them to get in touch with any questions or concerns throughout the project. We particularly emphasise being open with ourselves to allow us to assist as much as we are able.
The only questions we ask within our monitoring are those we use for the purposes of feeding back to our donors and/or reporting on our impact more widely. All the information provided by grantees is reviewed by our team ? we have a target to review reports within 2 weeks of their receipt ? and data is used to feedback to our internal and external stakeholders, to improve our understanding of needs in London and for our business development team to use in seeking new donors.
We commit to keeping our reporting proportionate, noting that for some funds there may be specific monitoring requested from the donors (particularly when we are distributing public funds).
We will continue publishing information on our grants through our website and our specialist advice forum. We will continue replying to funding queries timely and effectively. We will continue providing feedback to rejected applications and where possible, give them alternative funding sources to apply to. We will continue to be clear and concise in our messaging about our grants through social media and other publications. We will do our utmost to make decisions as quickly as possible. We will review our grants forms to shorten the application process.
We will only ask questions about the information that we do not have. We will continue using the information that already exists through regulatory bodies. We will get feedback about our application process from organisations to review our forms regularly.
In partnership with organisations, we will continue taking calculated risks to invest in pilot projects that can be rolled out widely. We will continue supporting organisations that face emergency issues to help them sustain their services.
We will continue making quick decisions on our emergency ?keep the doors open? applications. We will hold conversations with organisations that need emergency funding to get the information we need to speed the process. We will review our decision-making process for our small grants to make quicker decisions.
We will continue providing feedback to organisations that are rejected. We will publish our grants information online. We will continue sharing information, lessons learned and good practice with organisations and funders.
We will continue providing over 80% of our grants as unrestricted/core grants. We will continue to be flexible with our small grants and encourage organisations to have open, trusted conversations with us when their needs change.
We will seek to contact Trustees outside of scheduled meetings when their approval is needed for urgent action instead of waiting for the next scheduled meeting.
We will continue to be open and transparent with our grantees and potential applicants on our funding position and imminent future plans.
We will be flexible in our processes by offering more part-payments that may be required during a project lifecycle that helps organisations’ manage their cash flow.
We will keep in regular contact with our grantees so we can support the delivery of their projects but trust them to come to us if they need advice or support.
We will work on keeping our reporting requirements proportionate to the size of the grant to reduce the administrative burden on our grantees. We will only seek to ask grantees for information that is relevant to establishing the impact that the grant is making. We will take into account the organisation’s capacity when jointly deciding with them what information will be material and readily attainable for these purposes.
Over the next 12 months, to ensure we do this, our priorities will be:
– Be absolutely clear on what we will and will not fund.
– Ensure our grant making criteria are clearly published at all stages of the grant applicant journey.
– Update our Grant Guidance document in advance of each funding window.
– Publish key dates for grant programmes on our website along with our applicant numbers and success rates.
– Continue to offer a pre-application webinar to share information and answer questions.
We will, however, not adopt an ?invite only? approach, as we feel this is not equitable for the types of organisation we seek to support. We will also continue with a single-stage application as we feel that adding an additional stage would not add value for either party and would only lead to repetition and a longer funding cycle.
Over the next 12 months, to ensure we do this, our priorities will be:
– Provide a downloadable Word document of the application form on the website with guidance on each question.
– Add a subtitle to each long-answer question explaining why we are asking the question.
– Work with our colleagues in the Corporate Foundations Network to share best practice and explore the idea of a collaborative application form.
– Work to improve the form Save and Submission process, which has at times proven a problem for some applicants.
We will, however, continue to use reasonable word limits, to ensure that our volunteer assessors are able to ascertain key facts and information and to ensure that all applications be reviewed in a timely manner and with due care and attention.
Over the next 12 months, to ensure we do this, our priorities will be:
– Continue to share concerns over risk with the charity involved and offer them the opportunity to explain their situation, beyond the application form.
– Outline to applicants our own risk appetite and how we assess that in the application.
– To spend more time visiting our grant recipients to better understand risk from their perspective and how they are actively managing this.
– To review our own position and comfort with risk and how much of a factor this is in our area of work.
– Continue to ensure that our expectation of small charities and approach to risk management is realistic, reasonable and proportionate to the size of grant we are considering.
We will, however, not seek to eliminate risk or the considered use of restrictions on funding when it is in the best interests of the end users or where it allows us to support an organisation that may not be suitable for unrestricted funding (for example where they work with a wide range of community projects across multiple themes).
Over the next 12 months, to ensure we do this, our priorities will be:
– Publish all key dates for programmes over the coming 12 months.
– Share timetables for the grant programme in pre-application guidance and webinars.
– To continue to give swift feedback on applications.
– Ensure our team have enough time to give every application due consideration.
We will, however, not place undue pressure on our staff team or volunteer assessors to complete grant application reviews in unreasonable timeframes.
Over the next 12 months, to ensure we do this, our priorities will be:
– Remove our generic contact form from the website and replace it with a direct contact email address for key areas.
– Give open, honest and direct feedback on unsuccessful applications, particularly where we feel we can support them to make positive changes to future applications.
– Identify where applicants may be a better fit for another funder and advise them as such.
– Understand the common reasons for grants not being awarded and share them with prospective applicants.
– Upload all our grants data onto 360 Giving.
– Develop our local sub-committees to bring greater local knowledge to our grant assessment process.
– Conduct our first ever independent assessment of our grant making practices using an external agency.
We will, however, acknowledge that the grant assessment process is not a perfect science and not everyone will accept the reasons behind our decisions.
Over the next 12 months, to ensure we do this, our priorities will be:
– Continue to adopt a flexible approach to funding, promoting the use of unrestricted funding wherever possible and where restricted funding is employed, allowing this to be spent on core programme costs.
– Adopt a relationship-based approach, where grant recipients feel comfortable approaching us to share challenges that may impact on the original plan for the application of the funding.
– Continue to fund CICs and Community Groups where they meet our aims and objectives.
– Be proactive in identifying opportunities to provide multi-year support or larger amounts where possible.
– Continue to promote a cost recovery mindset to ensure our grants are not creating funding challenges elsewhere for the charities we support.
We will, however, continue to make smaller, one-off grants due to the positive impact they create and the value of them to micro charities to deliver key activities, particularly during a time of economic challenge to them and their service users.
Over the next 12 months, to ensure we do this, our priorities will be:
– Build a mailing list of charities that we communicate with quarterly to share funding information.
– Look at where we can add value through our communications and simplify this for the charities we engage with.
– Continue to develop a multi-channel approach in how we communicate, recognising the varying preferences for how we deliver information.
– Rewrite our funding agreement to be more reflective of what it is intended to do, more proportionate for the grants we offer, and more appropriate to a non-contractual gift.
– To continue to take a relationship-based approach to grant making that encourages open and informal communication and that adds value to the charities we engage with.
We will, however, continue to ensure we balance the needs of our stakeholders with those of the charities we support and ensure that we never ask of our grant recipients anything that could be considered unreasonable, onerous, or unduly burdensome.
Over the next 12 months, to ensure we do this, our priorities will be:
– To review our reporting requirements and assess what information we actively use and therefore require.
– To remove all formal reporting requirements for grants under £1,000.
– To align grant time periods with the size of the grant given and ensure any reporting requirement is proportionate to the size of grant awarded.
– To be flexible and accept responsibility for converting content into the format that we need to enable some degree of uniformity in the information we gather about our funding impact.
– To find a way to make uploading media with a grant report easier.
We will, however, ensure that we do engage with our grant recipients in some format during the grant period and that we will communicate the value in reporting as it relates to our own fundraising and donor stewardship.
We will ensure that our guidelines are clearly stated on our website.
We will track patterns emerging in the applications that we are declining and will update our guidelines accordingly.
For our Church & Communities and Older People & Housing programmes we use a two-stage application process ? a short Expression of Interest to begin with, followed by a longer application form.
We speak to all applicants who are invited to submit a full application to gain a better understanding of their organisation and their proposal as part of our assessment process. We explain to all applicants at this stage how our decision-making works and how long a decision is expected to take.
Our Young People & Education programme takes a proactive approach to grant making, whereby Grant Programme Managers reach out directly to organisations they have researched and identified as experts in their field to discuss possible funding. For this programme area, we are explicit that this is the approach that we take.
For all our programmes, we will not ask for information that is publicly available where possible.
By looking at our grant portfolios as a whole, we take an approach that balances risks and benefits. This way we support a diverse range of grantees.
We are willing to be a first funder, support new concepts and pilot projects.
We are realistic and take steps to mitigate risk where possible, for example, we may attach certain conditions to our funding.
For our Church & Communities and Older People & Housing programmes we review all Expressions of Interest generally within a maximum of 4 weeks of submission.
If an Expression of Interest is successful and an organisation is invited to submit a full application, we will discuss time pressures and urgency with the applicant, tailoring our approach accordingly.
Similarly for our Young People & Education programme, we discuss with applicants our timeframe upfront and how long a decision is expected to take.
We have regular Committee meetings throughout the year and all applicants are told at which Committee meeting their application will be considered. We communicate the decisions taken at these meetings in a timely manner.
We are transparent that our Church & Communities and Older People & Housing programmes are open for applications but that our Young People & Education programme takes a proactive approach.
We have published data about our current major grantmaking programmes on 360 Giving and update this after each round of funding.
We will better monitor applicant success rates. We will include data on success rates in our internal reporting and explore including this data in our guidelines.
We provide verbal feedback to all applicants who submit a full application.
We will continue to offer project, core, or unrestricted funding, recognising that our grantees are the experts and know what their organisation needs most. From April 2021, our Older People & Housing programme will offer unrestricted funding as default.
We are keen to have strong relationships with grantees and we encourage organisations to tell us should their needs and priorities change during the lifetime of their grant.
We pride ourselves on being a relational funder. For all our programmes we set up kick-off meetings with all grantees so that expectations on both sides are clear from the outset.
We ask all grantees for feedback on us as part of our reporting process but we recognise that this is not sufficient, so we plan to run an anonymous survey, asking all applicants for feedback on our processes.
Across all our programmes, we believe that our reporting is proportionate to the size of grant awarded.
We share our report template and the timeframe for reporting at the time of award.
We will explore how we can be more flexible. We will consider how we can be more open to receiving reports that grantees have produced for other funders, and in other formats, such as films/videos.
We will continue to ground our reporting in learning and are committed to sharing this learning better.
For our Church & Communities and Older People & Housing programmes, we recognise that applicants are best placed to determine their own outcomes and delivery methods.
For our Young People & Education programme, there is an expectation that grantees will work with an external evaluator and as part of a cohort of funded organisations, but this is made clear from the outset.
Whilst we do not currently have an open grants programme, when we do invite new applications we use a two-stage process, with the first stage just being a conversation with the trust manager, thus ensuring that no-one wastes their time submitting an application that has little chance of success.
When assessing new organisations we do not have a standard application form, we start with a conversation and then ask for two sides of A4 explaining what they want to do, supplemented by publicly held information, their website, social media etc.
We make core grants to organisations and do not require them to set or report against targets. We trust them to make their own operational decisions. We fund organisations over the long term and stick with them through their ups and downs.
We make core grants to organisations and do not require them to set or report against targets. We trust them to make their own operational decisions.
We give clear information on our website about our grant-making status (i.e. not currently having an open grants programme) and respond promptly to all unsolicited requests.
We share details about how we, as a grant-maker, operate with our Stratgeic Partners (grantees).
We give mostly unrestricted, core funding. We trust our Strategic Partners to spend our grant on their own priorities.
We are clear about our expectations of the relationship between the Foundation and our grant-holders (we call them Strategic Partners). Our grant conditions are set out in a single page document and we have a brief (just over a page long) Partnership Agreement which gives further clarity about our expectations of the relationship between the Foundation and its Strategic Partners.
In the past we have asked for an annual two-page report on ?what the world looks like where you are?, supplemented by sight of their six-monthly management accounts. This year we are piloting replacing this requirement with a meeting with the trust manager and a trustee, after which the trust manager will produce a report which the trustee will present to the trustee meeting. Most ?grant management? is carried out through conversation with the Trust Manager. Trustees understand what each organisation does through visits and discussion with each Strategic Partner developing a relationship with a ?paired? trustee.
We identified at our last grants panel meeting that certain organisations are less likely to be successful, we are therefore reviewing our guidelines to make clear who we will and will not fund, and will update our funding criteria and the guidelines on our website accordingly.
We are happy to be contacted before an organisation applies to discuss eligibility and answer any other questions, and we are happy to support applicants throughout the application process.
We will maintain an active role in regional funder networks and will continue presenting at ‘Meet the Funder’ events to increase awareness of our funding programme and priorities.
We are currently reviewing our application process ? it is already a two-stage process, but we are streamlining stage one into an ‘expression of interest’, with applicants only being taken through to stage two if they are likely to have a successful outcome. We are also reviewing all the questions we ask and removing any that have not been utilised in the decision-making process.
We take responsibility for compiling information on applicants from publicly held records such as accounts from the charities commission or information from an applicant?s website.
We don?t require detailed activity plans – we trust organisations to be the experts on the ground and to make their own operational decisions.
We do not have any specifications around reserve levels.
We are open to foundational funding and we accept a risk of failure, particularly in funding new work.
We are going to add our approach to risk into our grant-making policy, and will continue to think about whether we can take more risk.
We publish our dates for the year ahead on our website, and we stick to them.
Small grants are considered outside of our grants panel meetings so that we can ensure an outcome within two months from point of application.
We are clear with applicants about when they will hear back at each stage.
We give feedback to all unsuccessful applicants; we are honest with this and try to make it as useful as possible. We send an email and give an opportunity for a follow up phone call to discuss in more detail.
We are starting to collate some meaningful data on success rates where possible (this is difficult where we receive applications through a funders forum).
We have had an initial meeting with 360 Giving to discuss publishing our data and are mapping out our next steps.
We are currently reviewing our funding programme and thinking about how we can be more transparent about our decision-making process.
We have a preference for providing unrestricted funding as we believe that the organisations we fund are the experts on the ground and we therefore trust that they will utilise our funding in the most valuable way to both the organisation and their beneficiaries.
Sometimes organisations still apply for core or project funding, we will continue to look at how we present our preference for unrestricted funding to ensure that our grants remain as flexible as possible; we will build VCSE confidence in our offer, by clear and explicit communication about our preference for unrestricted funding.
When there is a clear rationale to restrict grants e.g., to a specific geographical location, we are trying to maximise the control charities have over their own spending. For example, broadly restricting funding to a region but allowing the organisation to use it flexibly within that region.
We try to maintain clarity of communications by being explicit about relationship expectations at the outset. We know that many of the organisations we support are stretched so we keep reporting light touch and agree this at the outset. We suggest that we just touch base at the end of the grant period or at interim stage if multi-year. We are open to more regular communications but will be led by the grantee on what works for them.
Conversations are at the heart of our grant-making process. We try to ensure that we have better conversations to build mutual understanding and honesty by always sharing in advance the areas we would like to discuss to give organisations time to prepare. We aim to be relational funders within our resources. We don?t have the capacity to build close relationships with organisations but we aim to engage directly and listen. We also visit a few of our organisations each year, and for these the visit will be in place of any other reporting. We don?t have the capacity to offer funder+ support, but are always thinking of other ways we can support the VCSE sector, for example connecting organisations.
We are trying to make all our processes (including reporting) less burdensome for applicants and grantees. Given our grants are relatively small and often unrestricted, typically we just ask that grantees let us know when they have produced an annual report and/or impact report and we will use that in place of any formal reporting, we know that this will often come after the grant period and this is fine. We let grantees lead on reporting so if they would prefer to report back in a different way this is fine.
We only approach funded partners we feel are well-positioned to deliver the outcomes of our strategy. We work with the organisation to co-produce the funding proposition and only ask for information that is necessary and useful.
We currently have a two-stage application process; during the first stage we work with organisations to get sufficient information so that we are confident that in the second stage there is a significant chance that the grant will be awarded.
Our funding strategy is based on a high degree of risk that we are prepared to accept and manage.
We fully assess the risk of each funding application so that us and our partners are aware of the risks and can mitigate where possible.
We have strong relationships with our funded partners so that we can respond quickly to any problems or issues. Our relational and collaborative approach to grant making means we have regular conversations where issues will be surfaced, discussed, and actioned appropriately.
Given our partnerships are multi-year, we start the conversations about the future as early as possible.
We publish information about all our awarded grants on our website, in our Annual Report and Accounts and to the 360Giving data standard.
We understand that things change, and we encourage our partners to be honest about what isn?t working well so we can work together to make changes and find solutions. Our funding strategy is based on learning from our work and flexing appropriately, although most of our funding is tied to outcomes, we are adaptable and will work with our funded partners to adjust their outcomes based on emerging evidence and learning and changing contexts.
During the lifetime of the grant we will support the organisation where appropriate to respond to and deal with challenging operating environments and/or opportunities.
Building strong partnerships, we trust our partners to know how best to deliver positive change in their area of expertise. We make it clear to our partners at the start of the funding relationship what they can expect of us and what we will expect of them.
All our funded partners have a dedicated programme manager and we establish clear and transparent relationships. Regular review meetings are held to assess learning as we go along and we ensure, as much as we can, that our time with our funded partners is mutually beneficial.
We co-produce our funding applications to ensure it has the best chance of being approved. Where we co-fund with other organisations we develop joint outcomes and reporting structures that means the funded organisation only has to produce one set of reports/information.
We are consistently mindful that the organisations we fund have limited time and resources which means that we constantly challenge ourselves to ensure our asks of them in terms of their time is limited and adds value to them in their work.
We aim for our annual review process to have a bigger focus on what we are learning together, ensuring the time spent on the annual review process adds value to the achievement of the overall outcomes and partnership.
We will introduce two-stage application processes for our grants programmes where it will help to mitigate against wasted time. We will provide constructive feedback for EOIs for both successful and unsuccessful applications, to ensure the process is worthwhile for all candidates in the grants lifecycle.
This aligns with the following principles from ?Our Grants Approach 2024-28? document:
Impactful: maximising and demonstrating the impact of funding for our ultimate beneficiaries, in the short- medium- and long-term
We will continue to refine our application and monitoring processes to ensure we only collect the information necessary to meet our assessment and due diligence requirements. We will invest in a grants management system to make our information gathering more efficient and less onerous on the applicant.
Grant Approach document principles:
Innovative: unlocking the potential of creative approaches, new ideas and technologies, supporting testing, scaling, and building evidence.
We appreciate that grant funded projects can be subject to change and unplanned changes can occur. We offer a constant point of contact with a grants officer throughout the life of the grant, to help with reprofiling projects and awards in order to mitigate against problems and barriers to successful spend.
Grant Approach document principles:
Innovative: unlocking the potential of creative approaches, new ideas and technologies, supporting testing, scaling, and building evidence.
We publish our grants programme timetables for applicants and aim to communicate decisions quickly. We will process funds quickly and reprofile payment schedules to help grantees with cashflow issues.
Grant Approach document principles:
Developmental: building capacity and capability of individual NHS charities, groups / cohorts of NHS charities, and across the sector.
We are an approachable funder for our member charities. We have a named contact in our grants team for each and every member charity.
We offer pre-application support and responsive feedback to our members throughout the grant making process.
We celebrate our grantees? successes and advocate for their work through a rich series of webinars, inspiration sessions, social media and communications channels.
Grant Approach document principles:
Transparent: being open, upfront and consistent in our communications with members.
We will design each of our future grants programmes through the lens of IVAR principles within the design, delivery and evaluation stages.
We offer a simple adaption process to enable our grantees to make changes to agreed projects.
Grant Approach document principles:
Inclusive: recognising the diversity of NHS charities and the communities we serve, prioritising inclusivity of processes and impact.
Collaborative: supporting relationships, partnerships and collaboration across charities, organisations and sectors, and with communities.
We have created an annual ?Grants Intentions? document to communicate our planned grants programme ahead of launch, in response to a request from Members to help them with planning and resourcing grant pursuit.
We have also confirmed our commitment to IVAR within our individual NHS Charities Together ?Grants Approach? document which outlines our relational grant making principles and new ways of working against identified strategic principles.
Grant Approach document principles:
Impactful: maximising and demonstrating the impact of funding for our ultimate beneficiaries, in the short- medium- and long-term.
We have a standardised approach to reporting and some of this is in the form of verbal reporting and some is within a published template.
Grant Approach document principles:
Co-designed: shaping grant programmes with members, ensuring they are meaningful and deliverable.
Inclusive: recognising the diversity of NHS charities and the communities we serve, prioritising inclusivity of processes and impact.
We have a two stage process. All applicants are required to send an email enquiry briefly outlining their proposed application, and how much funding they plan to request. We then confirm that this fits our criteria and is a feasible request. Only then do they complete a full application. There is an 80% chance of success.
During the process above, further clarification questions are sent to ensure that we only invite those applicants with a good chance of success.
We fund a range of projects including ‘high risk’ projects e.g feasibility studies, building condition surveys, where there is a chance that the overall project may not proceed.
Our deadline to grant lead time is less than 8 weeks and we aim to make payments as soon as bank details are provided. We respond to emails within a couple of days at most. Some grant requests are dealt with between meetings, if a priority project comes to us where our deadline is too far in the future, an application/decision can be expedited.
We publish the grants we make through our accounts.
If a grantee has problems in delivering the work in their application, we are very happy to discuss how we can help if they need more time or wish to repurpose their grant.
We have a simple application process and ask applicants to send brief reports at the end of each grant year.
We will continue to provide a rolling programme of grant-making alongside other programmes so that voluntary community groups and smaller charities are able to access funds quickly.
We publish data on funded organisations on our website and through 360 Giving/Grant Nav.
The application form is in its first year of use, so is likely to be honed after we get some feedback from applicants. Once we have the form, I conduct the assessment then go back with any questions to help fully understand the ask/project/aims, this is always tailored.
We fund both pilots or established activities, and understand that there is risk involved in both, we try hard to not be risk averse as we understand that the applicants are often dealing with risk (often through no fault of their own).
We fund both pilots or established activities, and understand that there is risk involved in both, we try hard to not be risk averse as we understand that the applicants are often dealing with risk (often through no fault of their own).
We meet three times a year and the Executive Director has the authority to commit to small grants outside of this schedule too, generally speaking applicants are advised of the decision within a few days of the committee meeting.
We try to give lots of helpful information on the website and encourage contact, our ethos is that we want to fund so approach every application with a positive attitude as we need them to help us achieve our aim of funding 🙂
We let applicants know the process, timeframes and any other helpful info (such as where we are in our budget year and how many other applications we have competing with theirs.
If contacted prior to the application being submitted, we chat it through and provide advice on the best ways to present the information so it fits with our aims and objectives. Even if we receive a new application with no contact, we make contact and offer to chat it through before we ask questions.
We encourage revised applications (following a discussion) to ensure that they get the best shot at our funding. Also see ‘be proportionate’ below.
Our website, our direct contact and grant decision comms all evidence that we communicate with purpose. If we feel that impact reporting is lacking, for example, then we offer to assist funded organisations in coming up with a mechanism that isn’t onerous but provides something useful for us both.
We don’t ask for lots of onerous reporting, we keep it simple grantees can choose to report at the end of the project or year, or provide some small update reports if that is easier for them. At the end of the day we are a small funder, so we try to keep things manageable, we have a part time resource and so understand the many pressures on smaller charities very well.
We speak to organisations (and where possible, meet the relevant people) before inviting an application to ensure all proposals submitted are a good fit for the Trust.
Our website provides information on our areas of interest, and includes a list of exclusions. We are in the process of developing a Purpose Framework which will clearly articulate our funding priorities.
We regularly review our application and reporting forms to ensure we only ask pertinent questions that strengthen our understanding of grantees? activities, plans and impact, and therefore, in turn, our own. We favour open discussion through calls, meetings and visits over written forms.
We recognise that not all projects will run according to plan and we are open to discussion, course correction as well as being keen to learn from failure. We build close relationships with grantees to better understand the issues that they are facing and how our support can be most effective.
We are comfortable funding small organisations who have never received philanthropic support before.
We make decisions on applications quickly and we are able to make payments quickly where necessary as well. Throughout the life of a grant, we are always available to respond to emerging issues from grantees and can usually provide timely additional support through our contacts.
We are agile and have developed new funding relationships in short timeframes to respond to urgent emerging needs, such as the rise in domestic violence at the beginning of the Covid pandemic.
We are open about our decision-making process both online and verbally. We provide feedback on all applications and are clear with grantees about our reasons for supporting them, as well as our reasons for declining them, where this is relevant. Although we are an invitation-only funder, we are aware of the limitations of our own knowledge and experience, and work with charitable organisations to fill these gaps where needed. We strive to share with grantees our mode of working from the outset of the relationship so that mutual expectations are clear.
We enable grantees to make changes to the timescales and use of our funding where necessary, following discussion with Trust staff. We will fund unrestricted core costs to enable organisations to adapt and make the most effective use of our support in a rapidly changing environment. We tend to provide long term funding, which strengthens organisations? ability to both plan and react.
All grantees have a single point of contact from the outset of our communications, supporting them through the application and decision making process, and building a strong relationship through the life of the grant. We inform grantees why we ask for reports and try to provide explanations of why we ask particular questions and how that information will be used. We aim for all communications to be positive and purposeful.
We recognise that the organisations we support are the experts in their work, and maintain open communication as much as possible to enable them to provide feedback and insights to improve our funding and collective impact.
We rarely ask for reports more than every 6 months. We are comfortable, in many cases, to accept monitoring reports prepared for other funders. If an organisation is applying for continuation funding at the end of a grant, the monitoring report and next application can be combined. We do not request written reports if, due to timings, recent meetings have covered all the key issues.
We do not impose outcome measurements; we ask organisations to tell us how they know they are making the difference they exist to achieve.
We have shortened the turn around time on applications from 3 months to 6 week.
We have a FAQ’s on our website.
We have made all fund information downloadable from our website.
We stopped asking applicants to fill in a 17 page form, and reduced it to 2 questions about what the funding would be used for and a budget section.
We stopped asking applicants to fill in a 17 page form, and reduced it to 2 questions about what the funding would be used for and a budget section.
We only ask a handful of evaluation questions.
We fund small groups whop have a constitution but are not reregistered charities. Our funding is often the first application they complete.
We don’t ask the applicants for proof their idea will work, we trust that they know their clients.
We often fund new ideas or groups.
We have responded to the Covid crisis by raising and distributing fund £1.2m we were making decisions on applications with in 7 days and sometimes short time scales.
We have drastically reduced the turn around times for all our other funds too.
We responded to the cost of living crisis immediately, both getting Household Sup[port funds to people but also by opening a round of funding for organisation to apply to for their own increased utilities etc.
We are going to publish our grants to 360 Giving.
We share out data with Local Authority and other funders eg what we fund where.
We publish the last 3 years awards on a map on online on our website here https://one-community.org.uk/funding-in-kirklees/
We host Zoom calls at the opening of a new fund with local groups asking question about criteria etc.
We clearly state what the criteria for funding is for each fund.
We run a drop in grants surgery. We do out reach surgeries in local communities.
We publish the decision date from the moment the applications go live.
We often support core cost applications.
As a small funder we are often contributing tot he cost of a project rather than fully funding it, we will in those cases leave it up to the group to decide which part of the project is funded by us, so that they can seek funding elsewhere for ‘easier’ to fund elements.
We have just completed a new branding project.
Our ethos is to be clear and consistent, to speak in plain language and avoid buzz words.
We have stopped asking for quotes for capital expenditure of any single item under £5000.
We have changed the digital forms to be shorter.
We have shortened the evaluation.
We have stopped asking for quotes for small capital items.
We clearly state and provide detailed funding guidelines for our grant programme in both our grant application documents and available openly online on our website. We hope this will reduce the number of ineligible organisations submitting applications to us. We share as much information as possible with prospective applicants, by hosting online information sessions and 1:1 meetings, to help ensure that schools understand the requirements, exclusions and aims of our grant programmes.
We tailor the questions in grant application forms to ensure they are clear, relevant and avoid repetition. OT is committed to constantly reviewing our application forms internally, as well as seeking feedback from applicants so that our approach can improve.
We are clear and concise about how risk is assessed. We are committed to learning and improving from projects that don?t work as planned.
We are clear about our decision-making timelines and make applicants aware of any changes, and we seek to make decisions as quickly as possible to meet the needs of applicants and interested partners.
We will provide feedback, including reasons for rejections and areas for recommendation. OT will contact declined applicants with a decision letter providing an overall reason for declination and will offer all applicants the opportunity to have a phone call with a staff member for feedback if that would be helpful. We will analyse and share relevant data.
We will try to ensure our funding is as flexible as possible so that organisations can use funds appropriately as contexts and circumstances shift.
Our contact with interested and successful applicants is purposeful. We are clear with our partners at the start of the funding relationship about what they can expect from us and what we will expect from them.
We will ensure that the reporting we require is clear, meaningful and proportionate. OT is committed to reviewing our monitoring and evaluation approach to ensure that our requirements are proportionate for applicants and interested parties.
We will review incoming queries from prospective applicants and use these to clarify any areas of our information that are unclear or causing confusion. We will review our reasons for rejecting applications and will use these to ensure our published criteria and exclusions are transparent and up to date. We will develop our approach to providing information in different formats and forums to make it more accessible for prospective applicants ? this will include more accessible, written formats and opportunities to speak to staff through enquiry calls and webinars.
We use a 2 stage process for open applications and aim to support at least 70% of applications at stage 2. We will ensure the questions at stage 1 allow us to make effective decisions on which applications to take forward. We will undertake user testing on new application forms to ensure the questions are clear and not duplicative. Every 6 months, we will monitor how long applicants are spending on completing application forms. We will then review our forms to ensure that the questions we are asking are providing the information we need in a way that is as efficient as possible ? e.g. asking 1 question rather than 3.
Through Covid-19, we have re-assessed how much detail we require from applicants concerning their stability, acknowledging the complexity of planning in a rapidly changing environment. We are looking at how to continue these principles into our ongoing funding to make sure that we are realistic about risk management and sharing risk with organisations.
We publish our application turnaround times and commit to sticking with those. We will bring in additional resource if necessary to meet these commitments. We have developed systems for responding more rapidly to need through the Covid pandemic, and we are working with Trustees to embed some of these approaches going forward.
We publish information about all our awarded grants on our website and to the 360Giving data standard. We will give written feedback on the main reason for declination to all unsuccessful applicants and will give more detailed feedback to applicants that are declined at the second stage. We will aim for this feedback to be developmental.
We offer a high degree of flexibility in the work and costs that we will fund, including project and operating costs depending on the needs of the organisation. During the life of the grant, we will continue to offer flexibility to ensure organisations can use the funds appropriately as the context shifts.
We publish written information about the grant relationships we expect to hold to inform prospective applicants about what they can expect. When we award a grant, we will jointly agree to the expectations for the relationship between us, and each grant-holder is clear on who the key point of contact is to raise any issues with as they arise.
We will explain why we have awarded a grant and will jointly agree on an approach to grant reporting. The approach will be flexible, allowing grant-holders to provide update reports verbally rather than in writing. A brief, written report at the end of the grant will be required for accountability and learning purposes; however, we do not require a bespoke report or a particular format. We are happy to receive the information in the way which is easiest and most efficient for the organisation to provide. We will provide independent opportunities for grant-holders to provide feedback on their relationship experience and commit to acting on this feedback to improve the experience.
Our funding is based on relationships and approached in a spirit of partnership. We do not measure our grantees against tick box standards and we do not expect our grants to be risk-free or everything to go to plan. What we do ask for is a frank and honest dialogue with our grantees, so that both sides can understand any the risks and challenges and maximise the opportunities for learning. All organisations go through challenging periods, especially during times of national crisis and uncertainty, and by providing unrestricted funds and working with grantees over long periods of time we demonstrate trust, an acceptance of risk and a willingness to be with them on their journey.
We do not take applications, but we communicate clearly and carefully with our Partners regarding any changes in their funding and we hope they feel able to approach us for a conversation at any time.
When we make a grant, we are committing to more than funding, we are starting a relationship. Both partners will need to invest time in building that relationship but relational grant-making should not be a burden for the grantee. We make it clear to our grantees that we will be better able to support them if we understand the challenges they face and the contexts in which they are operating, and that they will not be penalised for honesty. When a grant closes, we give as much notice as possible, as well as bridging support, so that the organisation can plan for the future.
We are constantly questioning the purpose of written reporting and are very much aware of the time it takes to write reports. We allow our grantees to report to us in whatever style and format works best for them and we make it clear that reports are the trigger for a wider conversation and should not be onerous to write, and that we are happy to accept joint reporting with other funders. As well as communicating how the funds were spent, for us, the main purpose of reporting is to encourage reflection for our grantees and to give them a check-in point to state their achievements and challenges, and for us to learn so that we can be a more effective funder. We prefer the written report to trigger a face-to-face conversation, so it does not need to be long or overly detailed, and can be replaced with a verbal update if a grantee is under pressure.
We meet all applicants (or offer to meet) prior to application and be honest with them about likelihood of success and timelines.
We review our application forms regularly and remove any questions that do not add to assessment.
As a funder we want to support dynamic, thriving communities and so accept that with that comes risks (i.e. new projects / short term projects / pilot and feasibility etc)
We offer feedback promptly and always consider how we can reach funding decision more quickly.
We tell applicants success rates, concerns, feedback etc
We allow people to change project spend and timeline if needed. We allow people to apply for what they need not for what they think a funder wants to support.
We ask questions promptly and that are relevant and always provide detailed feedback.
We consider risk level and due diligence and consider how we can be more proportionate in evidence needed, reporting requirements etc
We will only ask questions that are necessary to make a funding decision and review this annually. We will make it clear what our priorities are on our website and application form. For our six Community Programmes Trusts we will share the success rate on our websites after the first round of the year.
We will review questions at least annually to check they are relevant. We will not ask for a cost break down in application forms if funds are unrestricted. We focus on trust-based philanthropy.
Our grants are unrestricted by default and we only put in restrictions when truly required. We put trust in good causes to decide where funds are best used.
For our community programmes that focus on smaller charities and community groups, we will make a decision on applications within 4 weeks and payment within another 4 weeks.
Community programmes ? we will be open about funding process, timelines and priorities and share these in our funding guide. We will ensure we are available for questions by phone or email. We will update our end of funding review form to reflect that funding is unrestricted and publish this on the Trust websites.
Long term partnerships ? We will highlight funding gaps in our Trust strategies. We make sure we are always available to our charity partners for any questions they may have.
Our grants are unrestricted as default and only put in restrictions when truly required. We put trust in good causes to decide where funds are best used.
We will review communications to ensure they are relevant and necessary.
We make application and review forms as easy to fill in as possible, especially for smaller grants, and seek feedback on this.
We will base our eligibility and application questions on key considerations we require to make funding decisions. We will continue to make sure our funding criteria and exclusions are distilled in one place on our website, and are clear and easy-to-understand, without the need for additional documents to download. After each funding round, we review all applicant feedback and make improvements that aim to save future applicants? time. We will monitor the percentage of organisations we turn down and the rationale to make adjustments to our funding criteria if there are improvements to be made. We will review how our new, 3 Stage process works and adjust it in response to feedback. When we visit funded partners, we write up notes of the meeting and share with the funded partner for their comments before finalising/circulating – we do this instead of asking them for bespoke reports.
We offer unrestricted grants and make it clear in our Terms and Conditions that it is the grantee?s decision on how to spend those funds, whether that be on reserves or activity. We don?t require a detailed activity plan and trust organisations to make their own operational decisions. We are learning more from grantees and other funders about how best to evaluate unrestricted grants. We are making the process for triggering the renewal of our multi-year grants (ie: Year 2 of a 3 year grant) more transparent with funded partners so it is clearer how we approach this – and what we’ll do if there’s a concern to have a conversation about. We are aiming to be clear about what our compliance looks like, while retaining our trust-based approach.
Our Open Fund grants are for up to £30,000 for up to 3 years to small charities, so these are large grants. We need to get to know charities through our 3 stage process before awarding a grant. We have a clear timetable on our website that sets out what decisions are made and when, and let applicants know the outcome at each stage. Whenever we re-open a new funding round, we will challenge ourselves to shorten the timescale if it’s possible. Board awarded Cost of Living uplifts to our Round 1 partners within a month of it being raised at a Board Learning Workshop, and are considering it annually for current partners. We have a Strategic Fund that we use to make quick decisions in response to urgent needs, such as Covid-19, when we work in partnership with other funders.
We give written, personalised feedback to all unsuccessful applicants, and also offer a phone call; we look at why some applicants don’t meet minimum stated criteria to see how we can make these criteria clearer. At regular up-date visits with funded partners we ask for feedback including on our language and funding processes, incorporating this into our work going forwards.
We are committed to light touch monitoring. We don?t have a monitoring form or ask for bespoke monitoring. At the start of the funding relationship, we ask grantees to tell us what monitoring works for them (e.g. visits, zooms or phone calls; sharing reports they are already producing for other funders or a combination). We agree that ahead of the beginning of the grant period. As funders of unrestricted grants, we are interested in understanding what the organisation, as a whole, has undertaken over the year ? not specific activities. It remains important to ensure that grantees are compliant in terms of safeguarding and regulatory matters, but we aim to monitor this in a way that is transparent, supportive and consistent with our trust-based approach. We are currently embedding a new Learning Framework to add consistency to our relationships with funded partners, and this will include being clearer with funders about what is compliance and what is learning, and what our process is when a multi-year grant is renewed (ie: Year 2 of a 3 year grant).
We are comfortable with supporting small charities that may be at the start of their project and have little in the way of resources or track record. We help put them in touch with networks which might be able to provide them additional support and guidance. We understand that working on historic buildings means that there are often unforeseen happenings and we are flexible around programme timetables.
POP does not apply any narrowing criteria other than that of collaboration. Limited funds are managed by reducing the flow of applications before they are submitted. We provide full transparency on our transparency webpage
We only ask 3 questions at submission:
1) What do they want to do?
2) How will they work together?
3) What support do they need from POP members?
We also ask one question at the resubmission stage:
– What did they change as a result of the support?
Risk is inherent in this work. Our members rate the projects, and therefore the risk is measured by that process.
We are doing this now and invite other funders to do so.
We plan to submit our funding to 360Giving – we need to iron out any ‘double recording’ with our own funders first. See more on our transparency webpage
We only give core funding. We do not require collaborations to have a fixed plan and instead allow them to use the funding as they need, how they need it.
This is perhaps our weakest area, and we are still defining exactly how we work with funded projects. We employ a Learning Champion role which aims to act as both a grants manager and learning guide. However, this role is still developing and requires further clarification.
We aim to be proportionate at the submission and award stages. We are aware the processes we use are new and require effort to engage. We aim to reduce this effort as far as possible. We have no reporting requirements. Instead, we aim that in their interaction with our Learning Champion role (see above), the funded projects benefit. The aim is to provide useful learning products back to the projects funded via this interaction, thereby turning the monitoring paradigm on its head.
We continue to review our funding criteria on a regular basis.
Requests received that do not meet our criteria are always advised accordingly.
For those organisations that meet our criteria we will check out their online presence and the Charity Commission website to give ourselves some background information before contacting them for a telephone chat. Only if they decide to proceed will we send out our 2-page grant application form.
We will ask potential applicants how they heard of us so that we can make sure any sources of information about the Foundation are accurate and uptodate.
Further refinement of our application form has enabled us to simplify how our three objectives are shown and streamline the financial information we require.
Applicants are encouraged to contact us if they have any issues completing the application form. We are happy to accept a draft version and provide feedback before the final application is submitted.
We attempt to collect the minimum of information required for a funding decision and the administrative process.
We believe that the provision of an application document that can be completed offline and where all the questions are visible to the applicant before they start completing it, is important.
With the arts continuing to be under pressure since the lockdowns, we believe as a funder in sharing risk with small charities. We know that financial success in artistic events cannot be guaranteed.
By providing core funding, unrestricted funding, funding for new initiatives and pilots, and concerts of all types we are always likely to have some failures, or work that falls short of what we hoped. However, we know that for creativity to flourish the safe option is just not an option.
By continuing with our very light touch application process, we aim to put our trust in our beneficiaries and we would encourage them to talk to us in the event of any problems so that we could work together to reach a solution.
We have increased our trustee meetings to three per year to improve our speed of response for grant-making decisions.
Our email decision making process has remained in place since the lockdowns to enable rapid decision-making when required.
Applicants are usually notified within a couple days of our decision, and this is followed up by issue of funds by bank transfer within a couple of weeks.
We have phased out the use of cheque to reduce paperwork for both ourselves and our beneficiaries.
Any funding request that does not meet our current funding criteria will always be contacted and advised as to the reason for their ineligibility.
In the event of an application not being successful we would certainly aim to discuss the reasons for this with the charity and see if there was a future way forward.
We now make all our grant information available online through 360 Giving.
We do not believe that it is for us to dictate what a charity should be doing. We do provide core funding and unrestricted grants. We have removed the word ?project? from all our documentation in order to emphasis that we want to support all aspects of a charity?s work.
Our initiative to provide multi-year funding (three year awards) gives charities greater flexibility and stability for future planning. We have also seen cases of this commitment being used to leverage funding from other funders. We are going to look at possible options for extending this initiative in the future.
We aim to contact all eligible applicants by telephone to introduce ourselves and outline the application process. We will explain what we require and the relevant timescales. We also take this opportunity to signpost other resources which the applicant might find useful.
Our monitoring form has been replaced with a Feedback form, which includes the option of providing alternate forms of feedback – maybe a report already written for another funder.
The feedback enables us to show the impact of our grants and also promote the work of our grantees in our enewsletter and annual reports.
? We will continue to work with others to deliver funder surgeries and attend ?meet the funder? events to explain our funding priorities, criteria and grant-making processes.
? We will continue to make sure that we are easy to contact by grant seekers who want to discuss applying to us.
? We will continue to not ask for supporting documents if they haven?t changed since their last application.
We have simplified the application form for our core rolling grants programme, reducing the number of questions and adding more help text. We will regularly review and apply this approach to other grant programmes where possible.
? We have begun awarding multi-year grants.
? For several of our grant programmes we have stopped asking applicants how they will sustain the work once our grant funding comes to an end.
We publish our timescales for deciding on applications and explain why it takes time to decide on grant applications. If unforeseen circumstances mean that we have to take significantly longer to make decisions, then we will let applicants know. We will regularly review how long our decision-making takes.
? We will continue to write to all applicants who have been unsuccessful giving the main reasons for our decision.
? We are developing a pool of grant panel decision-makers, increasing the diversity and representation from outside the community foundation. This work is ongoing to ensure we have the right experience, both professional and lived experience, that is relevant to each grants programme.
We will continue to make it easy for grant recipients to adjust the work we have funded them to deliver and to alter their reporting timescales. We encourage them to call us if they have any questions. We are more concerned about outcomes for the community rather than changes to project budgets.
? When we award a grant, we explain the reporting requirements and explain why we ask for information at the end of a grant.
? We will provide support where we can with applying for a grant, but if applicants need support which is outside our remit, then we will signpost them to relevant organisations who can help.
We have reviewed our end-of-grant report forms and reduced the number of questions. We will continue to review these forms and ensure consistency and proportionality across our grant programmes.
Reviewing all our grantmaking processes and introducing a much shortened first stage, online ‘expression of interest’ form.
Reducing the number of questions at stage two and ensuring no duplication with stage 1.
Making commitments to small and innovative charities testing new ideas.
Fast turnaround of our grant applications.
Replacing our website with a far more user-friendly, clear and open site.
Always responding positively to requests to vary terms as projects progress.
We’ve just reviewed and rearticulated our purpose, mission and strategy in a 2-page document
Light touch monitoring of all our grants
? Our published guidance, application forms and all relevant documents developed for our 10-year Strategy (2020-30), were user tested with a range of external stakeholders, including low-capacity groups. This approach will be applied to the development of any new documents.
? We capture data on reasons for declining applications and use this to refine our external messaging and inform knowledge building across the team.
? We provide individual feedback to those applicants who have been unsuccessful and where possible, identify the specific issue which has informed our decision. We will also explain what an unsuccessful applicant would need to address in order to reapply and increase their chances of success, if appropriate.
As part of the development of our Funds, we reviewed our application forms to ensure that we are only asking for information that we need to make a decision or for learning purposes.
As we have a 1 stage process, the questions we ask are used:
In considering the above:
? We consider risk within the context of developing relationships with funded organisations where there is trust on both sides and a strong desire to redress the power imbalance between funder and funded organisations.
? We do not have a published policy on reserve levels but encourage applicants to share with us any financial information which they feel is important.
? The level of uncertainty faced by charities in the light of COVID is such that it would be unreasonable for us to expect meaningful financial forecasts from many of our applicant charities.
? Where we see that there is an element of financial risk but believe the proposed work to be closely aligned with our own strategic goals, we acknowledge this internally and put into place appropriate grant monitoring procedures.
? We no longer ask for detailed ?activities?. We place trust in the organisation to deliver what is needed to support their client group.
? We make all decisions about small grants within 30 days of receiving an application. If we have problems meeting our timetables, we get extra help rather than giving applicants less time or changing their deadlines
? We try to think creatively about how and when to give useful feedback to all unsuccessful applicants ? we never just say ?we had more applications than we could fund?
? We publish details of the reasons for rejection at each stage of our application process
? Our Trustees are committed to moving 90% of our annual spend to unrestricted grants within three years.
? We contribute towards the essential operating costs of an organisation, not just to direct project costs.
? When we make a grant, we jointly agree the expectations for the relationship between us.
? We are working on ways for funded organisations to safely raise challenges in their grant relationship with us
? We explain why we have awarded a grant and then jointly agree what grant reporting will work best for us both.
? We use a simple ?tick box? form to deal with all reports for accountability purposes.
We will explain our funding priorities clearly; we will be open and transparent about all our requirements and exclusions. We will guide applicants through use of an eligibility quiz and 2 stage form where appropriate with information sessions.
We will only collect information that we must have to make funding decisions; we will test our application forms rigorously to make sure our questions are clear and do not overlap.
We will be realistic about how much assurance applicants can reasonably give us; we will clearly explain how we assess risk when we make our funding decisions; we will encourage funders to provide funding in advance to reduce the financial burden and cashflow challenges for the grantee.
We will seek to work at a pace that meets the needs of applicants; we will publish and stick to our timetables; we will make our decisions as quickly as possible. We will provide email and telephone support throughout the applicant lifecycle.
We will give feedback; we will analyse and make funders aware of success rates to support learning and reflection. We will share reasons for rejection and where possible we will share our data.
We will enable flexible responses to changing priorities and needs ? we will give unrestricted funding; if we can?t, we will make our funding as flexible as possible. We will listen to equity groups/potential applicants to ensure we are providing support that is needed and add value where possible.
We will be clear about our relationship from the start ? we will be realistic about time commitments; we will ensure that our contact is positive and purposeful. We will communicate the commitments from both parties in the prospectus/guidance and through the relationship provide relational support from induction/welcome meetings.
We will use light touch reporting and application forms ? we will ensure that our formal requirements are well understood, proportionate and meaningful.
We are committed to continually reviewing our success rates and avoid wasting the time of unsuccessful applicants.
We use the data and knowledge we have to try and ensure we do not attract large numbers of applications that we are not able to fund.
One of the ways we reduce the number of applications we receive is by having clear and focused eligibility criteria.
We will also continue to ensure that we publish how much funding is available and the number of grants we anticipate making.
We will continue to work towards having a more standardised application form, meaning applicants can more easily update information from one round to the next, rather than re-entering it.
We are committed to funding small grassroots organisations.
We will continue to ensure we understand the challenges women?s organisations face and communicate this to the assessors and decision makers that we work with.
We undertake research and share findings from our monitoring forms to deepen our understanding of the challenges facing small women?s organisations. We will share this with our assessors through training and with our decision makers through pre-panel briefings.
We ensure representatives form women?s organisations who understand the challenges facing women?s organisations sit on our decision panels.
We use the data we collect about women?s organisations to keep an eye on emerging issues meaning we can respond to these with urgency.
We are committed to raising and distributing funding as quickly as we can within our resources and often bringing in extra resources to enable this.
At Rosa, we are committed to giving feedback to unsuccessful applicants to help them understand our decisions and improve their chances of receiving funding from us and other funders.
We will be clear about the level of feedback we are able to provide in the application materials.
We will continue to consider how we can best provide constructive feedback to unsuccessful applicants within our resources.
We are committed to making sure applicants understand our processes and the timeframes that we make decisions in. We stick to these processes and timeframes.
As we develop programmes we will continue to ask ourselves how our funding can be as flexible as possible within the constraints that we have.
We encourage applicants to ask for what they need in terms of costs.
We explain our criteria and processes clearly and we tailor and target information for our specific audience. We keep applicants up to date during the decision-making process.
We use information we collect from applicants and grantees to help with our planning and programme development.
We will work with our Trustees to consider how we measure and communicate our impact. As part of this, we will consider whether our end of grant report forms are proportionate and whether we are using the information we ask for.
As part of our monitoring forms we ask grantees to tell us how we can improve what we do.
Our grants programme is open all year round (January to December). Assessed applications are sent with recommendations to our Grants Committee to make decisions in correspondence after 5 working days.
We have refined our online application form to ask only those questions that are necessary to consider and make decisions on applications. Feedback from applicants suggests that they find the application process light-touch and easy to navigate.
We fund outdoor community festivals and events in our area of benefit that bring diverse communities together and improve community cohesion, and accept that the vagaries of British summertime may significantly impact attendance.
Grant applications are decided in correspondence, and do not have to wait for quarterly Trustee meetings.
We invite feedback on our application processes on Flexi-Grant.
We support applicants that are not familiar with online technology and/or have disabilities to prepare applications – i.e. they talk, we type.
Prior to 2023 (and the involvement of Southwark Charities as our day to day administrators), we had no website or social media presence. We now have website, Twitter and Facebook and our profile within our area of benefit, The Ancient Parish of Rotherhithe, has been greatly enhanced.
We tend to offer grants that are in proportion to the numbers of beneficiaries from our area of benefit. For example if there was a project where 50% of beneficiaries were from our area of benefit we could consider funding 50% of total costs.
WHAT WE DO NOW
Our website shows clear criteria for grant applicants, both in terms of geographical areas covered and our priorities for funding.
Our website clearly shows the things we do not fund.
Our website has a downloadable copy of our Grant Making Policy for applicants to get further detail.
Our website has case studies showing the type of charities that we fund
We have a three-step process INITIAL ELIGIBILITY -> PHONE DISCUSSION -> FULL APPLICATION
We publish a downloadable version of our application form online to assist applicants with preparation and collaborative working
We have informal feedback that the application process takes an average of three hours.
We offer further phone support for the applicant when we have the initial phone call.
OUR NEXT STEPS
We will set up a post application questionnaire (for both successful and unsuccessful applicants) to get more structured feedback on how well we meet this pledge and how we can improve.
We will use the questionnaire to determine a more accurate guide to how long an application to The Shears Foundation will take.
Phone conversations with applicants (stage two) are currently quite informal. We will introduce a greater degree of structure to ensure consistent information is provided / questions are asked without losing the personal / friendly dimension.
WHAT WE DO NOW
We do not ask for detailed information until the third stage of our application process.
We only ask questions that form part of our decision-making process.
We only ask for documents / supporting information that the applicant is likely to have readily available.
We ask for straightforward financial information on project cost, secured / unsecured funding and how our grant would be allocated. We do not ask for detailed project budgets / spreadsheets etc.
We never ask an applicant to ?create? a document for the benefit of our application process.
When monitoring, we ask only for feedback against the three objectives that the applicant identified in their application.
The financial monitoring information that we ask for is light touch, we do not ask for a detailed breakdown against the original budget ? simply whether all funds have been spent.
OUR NEXT STEPS
We will set up a post application questionnaire (for both successful and unsuccessful applicants) to get more structured feedback on how well we meet this pledge and how we can improve.
We will continually review the information that we ask for in the application and its relevance to the assessment process.
We will pay greater attention to our monitoring process, feeding back where appropriate and ensuring that previous monitoring is used effectively as part of our assessment process.
We offer three-year, unrestricted grants to our core groups (charities that we have a longer term, ongoing relationship with).
We offer core funding for staff and other overheads.
We are prepared to offer grants to newly formed charities.
OUR NEXT STEPS
We will set up a post application questionnaire (for both successful and unsuccessful applicants) to get more structured feedback on how well we meet this pledge and how we can improve.
We will make it more clear in our application process that we are prepared to fund core costs.
We will update our constitution / governing document to be able to fund a wider range of organisations with a charitable purpose, not just registered charities as we do now.
WHAT WE DO NOW
We publish all our deadlines and timescales on our website. We have recently made some modifications to the timescales to ensure we can act in line with our commitments.
We consider applications that are from our core charities, outside our normal quarterly grants cycle and often make a decision within a few days of receiving the application.
We have a budget for disaster relief / emergency grants. We work in partnership with The British Red Cross to ensure that these grants are awarded within a few days of a simple email application from them.
OUR NEXT STEPS
We will set up a post application questionnaire (for both successful and unsuccessful applicants) to get more structured feedback on how well we meet this pledge and how we can improve.
We will ensure that stated timescales for grant decision making are adhered to, except in exceptional circumstances.
WHAT WE DO NOW
We publish open grants data on 360 Giving.
We always respond to potential applicants / applicants at all stages of the application process with clear messages.
We provide limited feedback on why a grant has not been approved.
OUR NEXT STEPS
We will set up a post application questionnaire (for both successful and unsuccessful applicants) to get more structured feedback on how well we meet this pledge and how we can improve.
We will add to our application approved and application rejected emails a line to offer a further conversation about the decision if required.
We will develop our initial application assessment process (pre-trustee consideration) to make it more robust and objective.
WHAT WE DO NOW
We welcome conversations if the needs of an organisation changes, or the period in which a grant will be spent is extended. We are willing to make changes to the original terms of the grant.
In 2022, we have introduced a cost of living / inflationary increase to our small grants programme.
We have an informal relationship / agreement with British Red Cross so that they can advise us of Disaster / Emergency funding needs and we can rapidly respond.
OUR NEXT STEPS
We will set up a post application questionnaire (for both successful and unsuccessful applicants) to get more structured feedback on how well we meet this pledge and how we can improve.
We will add to our application approved email a clear indication that, as a flexible funder, we are open to further conversations if the needs of the organisation changes.
We will review the sizes of our small and core grants on an annual basis.
We have a pre-application conversation with all potential applicants, prior to them applying.
We clearly show on our website the various deadlines & decision-making timescales for our quarterly grant making cycles.
We use the pre-application telephone conversation to outline the type of funder that we are and our expectations.
We outline the decision-making process as part of the pre-application telephone conversation
We ask applicants to define their own objectives for the work, against this they will assess themselves when they provide end of grant monitoring.
We are very clear about the size of grants that we offer.
OUR NEXT STEPS
We will set up a post application questionnaire (for both successful and unsuccessful applicants) to get more structured feedback on how well we meet this pledge and how we can improve.
We will work to introduce a short six month follow up phone conversation with grant recipients.
We will ensure that, as part of the pre-application telephone conversation, we tell applicants what % of applications are approved on average.
ORIGINAL
Our monitoring form is already relatively light touch, and we ask groups to set their own three objectives and measure the impact of the grant against these. We will continue to review this.
OUR NEXT STEPS
We will set up a post application questionnaire (for both successful and unsuccessful applicants) to get more structured feedback on how well we meet this pledge and how we can improve.
We clearly identify specific areas of interest or target populations the grant aims to support. Understanding the aims of each funder allows applicants to tailor their proposals to align closely with the objectives of the particular funding source. We use a straightforward online application system, provide clear guidance, and offer support throughout the application process. Also, make decisions quickly and communicate them clearly to applicants.
Applying to a fund whose aims and criteria closely align with the project increases the likelihood of success. Questions are tailored to fit the priorities of each funder demonstrates a strong understanding of their interests and increases the chances of securing funding.
We recognise that new or smaller groups may not have the track recored of larger and more established organisation. we develop a clear framework for assessing and accepting risk with each fund and communicate this openly, and are transparent about how the foundation handles and learns from risks taken.
We clearly communicate the timeline for decision-making to applicants, and strive to meet or exceed these timelines. We can implement fast-track procedures for urgent applications, ensuring that decisions can be made quickly without compromising due diligence. Once a decision is made, we ensure that funds are disbursed immediately. This involves having pre-approved funding agreements that allow for rapid processing.
We regularly publish detailed information about the foundation?s funding priorities, decision-making processes, and feedback from applicants. This information is easily accessible on the foundation?s website and through our other social media communication channels.
We plan to establish a fund specifically for urgent needs, allowing for quick disbursement of smaller amounts to address immediate challenges, such as disaster relief, urgent community needs, or time-sensitive projects.
We make it easy for organisations to request urgent support by having a dedicated point of contact. We will ensure that information is easily accessible and well-publicised.
We will ensure that the foundation responds quickly to inquiries and applications, even if it?s just to acknowledge receipt and outline the next steps.
We tailor the grant-making processes, requirements, and expectations to the size, capacity, and needs of each grantee. This means avoiding a one-size-fits-all approach and instead adjusting the level of scrutiny, reporting, and compliance based on the scale and nature of the grant. For example, smaller organisations or projects should not be burdened with the same detailed reporting and administrative requirements as larger, well-resourced organisations. By right-sizing the demands placed on grantees, we can ensure that its processes are fair, efficient, and supportive, allowing organisations to focus more on delivering impact rather than managing bureaucracy. This approach not only fosters a stronger relationship with grantees but also maximises our own resources by focusing on what is truly necessary for accountability and success.
Continue to give an immediate response about whether or not a charity should take the time to write and submit an application by asking every interested applicant to call or email our Trust Manager first, to briefly tell her about their organisation and what it needs funding for. In most cases, if they do apply, the Trust Manager will have a telephone call or a Zoom to ensure the applicant knows what the trustees are looking for and to discuss what the charity most needs funding for. We will also now accept all applications by email.
In addition to what we have already outlined in this section, we will add further information on the How to Apply page of our website. Under the Other Useful Information heading we will include information about application success rates and the fact that grants are paid within a few days following each trustee meeting.
In July, we started using the Yorkshire Common Application Form (YCAF) which is a Yorkshire Funders’ initiative. We have had very positive feedback from applicants about the application form and the Trust Manager is finding that the applications are generally now of a higher quality and she is having to ask less questions after the form has been completed.
Continue to support a range of charities with small grants ? some of whom are really struggling financially and others that are in a very sound position. By continuing to talk and meet with the people running the organisation and discussing their financial and operational track record, we will continue to support some charities which on paper others may reject.
Continue to post on our website the dates for the next two meetings, guidelines on the best time to make initial contact, and make the grant payments by BACS within a couple of days of the trustees? meeting being held. We will continue to approve grants at the trustee meetings, but if an applicant who we have a relationship with is in urgent need of funds, the Trust Manager will continue to put these forward to the trustees in between meetings.
We will aim to start giving brief feedback on each Impact Form received, rather than just emailing to say thank you and we’re glad our grant made a difference.
We will work to be more flexible at the grant reporting stage and make it clear that each grant holder can complete the Sir George Martin Trust Impact Report provided with their grant awarded confirmation email, or they can provide the update in another format which they have used for another/other funders in order to save them time.
We will also aim to start giving multi-year grants to some applicants later in 2023.
In the near future we will aim to start an annual or bi-annual e-newsletter which will be sent to all recent grant holders, keeping them up-to-date on the Trust’s grant making programmes and initiatives. We will also aim to post more stories on LinkedIn featuring the Trust Manager’s charity visits and grants awarded.
Continue to encourage grant holders to complete the simple Grant Impact Form which states the suggested time frame for return, but if they do not send this back it doesn?t mean they can?t apply again or won?t receive another grant.
– Our funding priorities and guidelines, including exclusions, are published on our website and reviewed this regularly. We encourage applicants to contact us to discuss their eligibility before they apply and are open to answering any questions about our priorities or the funding process.
– We offer feedback on request to all unsuccessful applicants and will indicate to an applicant whether they are able to apply again or if they are unlikely to be successful in future.
– In 2024/25 we will be clearer about our geographic criteria to give a better indication to applicants of whether they are eligible to apply.
– We will only ask for information we use during the assessment process. Our form is relatively short and we won?t ask for bespoke budgets, activity plans, impact frameworks etc.
– In 2024-25 we will investigate moving to an online application system, and will ensure this follows best practice such as a downloadable form, ability to see all questions in advance, ability to copy and paste, no restrictive word limits etc.
– We have a track record of backing newer initiatives in our area and will seek to continue this.
– The board have outlined our ideal allocation of funding between core funding to local organisations, project funding and research/innovation funding.
– In 2024-25, we will explore what a research and innovation funding stream would look like.
– We provide clear timelines to applicants for main grants, with deadlines on the same dates every year. We will state when applicants can expect to hear back from us with a decision and when they can expect to receive their grant.
– In 2024-25, we will publicise deadlines for our small grants programme, which currently operates on a rolling basis.
– We now openly share data on all grants made above £5,000 in our annual accounts.
– In 2024-25, we will implement sharing this information on our website. We will explore sharing data via 360 Giving in line with a grant-making systems transition.
– We will not hold applicants to detailed delivery plans and we do not ask funded organisations to sign a grant agreement.
– Our presumption is that we will be flexible with grant-holders who need to extend or repurpose funding, unless the purpose then falls outside our criteria.
– In 2024-25, we will trial a core funding programme to allow our funded organisations to determine their own spending priorities.
#NAME?
– We conduct light touch monitoring and have only a short evaluation form, to be submitted at the end of the grant.
– In 2024-25 we are exploring the proportionality of the due diligence on our smaller grants.
Before submitting a full application, we ask that organizations contact us by email with a short outline of the project. Acting as a first stage process, this allows us to inform prospective applicants quickly if we could consider full proposals, rather than waste the time of each going through the full process first.
The Foundation also has clearly listed application deadlines, circa 6 weeks prior to the meeting, so applicants know when proposals will be considered. We then aim to communicate all decisions within a week of the meeting. This gives a clear timescale from start to finish.
Our application forms, assessment process, and all reporting aim to be concise ? collecting data only strictly relevant to reaching a decision (or evaluating the impact of an award). With this, we aim to manage our programmes as a dialogue, especially once assessment is underway, with an emphasis on funding as a partnership.
We recognise that projects do not operate in a perfect environment. Proposals change with time, and do not always achieve every outcome they anticipate when an application form is written. Returning to the principle of dialogue and partnership, we hope to foster honesty and transparency that funded organisations feel able to speak with us openly. As much as possible we hope to be flexible in a way that can adapt to the changing circumstances of grantees.
As detailed, we have a roughly seven week start to finish process. This is already a fairly long time ? but is as quick as we have found practical with our capacity to operate our programmes. This however is a reduction from historic approaches as we know that organisations need reliable funding to operate. We aim to communicate our decisions as quickly as we can, within a week of the meeting (an reliably within 48 hours in pratcice).
Furthermore, once an award is made, we seek to make payments promptly. Weekly payments mean that organisations can receive their grant without a long wait.
Dialogue remains a central principle. We respond to all funding enquires, and answer any questions given by organisations. Prospective applicants are informed if we are able to consider them, with clarity given against our criteria if they are ineligible. Furthermore, when a full application is invited, but an award not made, we give a clear reason in writing, against our criteria.
Projects operate in the real world, and not simply on paper. To that end we readily recognise that they will adapt and change over time (not least for our multi-year awards). The terms of our grant awards stipulate that ?if you wish to make changes to your project or budget, please contact us in advance of reallocating any funds. We will be very happy to discuss possible changes here.? This underpins our willingness to offer flexibility to our grantees in dialogue with them.
We know that many charities have limited capacity to manage unnecessary communications, and that funders risk being overbearing and crating an unhealthy power-dynamic. We limit what and how we communicate to the key essentials: for informed decision making during assessment, for post award grant payments, and for end of year reporting.
Furthermore, we often reach out to funded organisations for our communications work ? insomuch that we offer to share the work they are doing through eNews, social media, etc. Our hope is this is as beneficial to funded organisations as it is to us.
Proportionality directly links to many of our processes. The smaller the award the less we expect in an application form and supporting documentation, the less intensively we ask questions during our assessment process, and the more streamlined our evaluation. If the process of getting cash from a funder is not a beneficial experience for an applicant, a small award isn?t likely to make up for that (very much!).
? After each funding round, review all rejected applications, and our guidelines and process, to learn and improve clarity and consistency in future rounds.
? We will provide, on all funding rounds, a specific email address and helpline with named Grant Managers who will promptly answer any fund and application queries.
? We will provide accessible and open webinars and live Q and A sessions, as well as Guidance Notes with clear criteria, listing what we fund and do not fund, requirements per question/answer, a glossary, and advice of any weighting applied.
? Wherever possible, we will produce a simple online application eligibility check, and increasingly move to a two-stage online process, in some cases with the option of speaking with the applicant.
? We will work towards co-designing funding rounds from 2023 onwards
? We will ask for routine feedback from the grantees on their experience of our funding rounds and applications processes.
? We take responsibility for compiling information on applicants from publicly held records (e.g., accounts from Charity Commission).
? We will limit questions to those that assure us that the applicant 1) will be able to manage the grant efficiently and effectively 2) will be reaching out to our target group(s) and mission.
? We will collect a limited amount of information at the beginning of the application process and provide successful applicants with a Post-Award Form that picks up additional pieces of information later.
? We will simplify the application form for previous/existing grantees who apply for additional funding, using information, where possible, from earlier applications.
? We will provide application forms that are clear and simple, using jargon free language and terminology.
? We will make questions around due diligence proportionate to the amount of grant awarded. However, sometimes external funders may require that more checks are made.
? We will improve accessibility of the application processes, wherever possible, making reasonable adjustments for applicants who are disabled, neuro divergent, do not have English as their mother tongue, etc (e.g. offering Braille, or translation into another language), as well as reviewing participatory grant-making approaches.
? We will discuss ?risk? concerns openly with applicants during assessment process, and not make assumptions about their understanding of or ability to manage the risks that the organisation faces.
? We will not request detailed delivery plans and will provide flexibility to move funds around once granted when providing Smallwood funding, but this may be more restricted if an external funder.
? We will continue to provide grantees with six months funding in advance and provide core versus project funding where relevant and possible, giving security and reducing risk.
? Wherever possible, we will offer organisational development support e.g., fundraising, governance, etc., to help reduce risk.
? We will provide clear feedback on whether risk was a factor in an application being unsuccessful.
? We will work with our Trustees, using delegated grant-making authority where appropriate, and holding additional decision-making panels as necessary, to meet the needs of applicants.
? We will continue to give autonomy to our Community Grant Partners, who with delegated grant-making authority, distribute a percentage of Smallwood?s annual budget direct to the women they work with in the form of individual grants.
? We will publish and stick to timetables, communicate decisions quickly, and ensure that once grants have been awarded, and necessary papers signed, the funds will be sent without delay.
? We will respond to requests to vary grant conditions as quickly as possible.
? Where possible, we will provide specific reject reasons and areas to improve future applications individually in writing, and/or with a telephone call or meeting, as well as collating the most common reasons for unsuccessful applications in a single document.
? We will provide a review webinar for unsuccessful applicants.
? We will continue to publish grants data on the Smallwood Trust website through press releases.
? We will post on the 360Giving Data Standard any grants delivered with the Smallwood Trust?s own funding.
? We recognise that things change, and we are open to organisations reallocating funding where appropriate and in the best interests of the organisation and beneficiaries.
? We will remain flexible in our approach to funding with multi-year core, unrestricted and project, depending on what the sector needs and shaped by feedback – providing the funds are used to meet our mission. When the grant is through an external funder, there may be further restrictions, which will be communicated at an early stage.
? We will be flexible on delivery date, completion dates, timescales, and reporting when funding is solely through the Smallwood Trust.
? We jointly agree with the grantee expectations for the relationship, including payment schedules and reporting.
? If co-funding, we operate flexibly on format and timescales.
? We provide free accredited training and licenses for organisations on the Outcomes Star methodology.
? We will create positive relationships and spaces for similar sized organisations to learn from each other, encouraging the sharing of resources and best practice through online workshops and networking.
? We will offer additional assistance to small organisations through workshops, Grant Manager support, and, for Community Grant Partners (CGPs) access to Smallwood?s Grant-making Toolkit.
? We will engage with grantees on a regular basis, having conversations that help us understand the issues they face as well as the successes.
? We will pay organisations for their time when they engage with us for our benefit.
? We are open to potential applicants discussing their ideas.
? We will make the process as easy as possible for the grantee, streamlining our monitoring and evaluation reports, being flexible on completion dates, providing clear reporting formats or in some cases allowing the grantee to use their own, and explaining in the Guidance Notes what data we are looking for and why.
? We will aim to reduce the burden of any stringent reporting, from an external funder, when we are providing onward funding.
? We will work with the grantee to ensure that monitoring reports/surveys are proportionate to the size of the grant; that they are restricted in number – usually every 3 or 6 months and on completion; and accept that sometimes they will report on outputs rather than outcomes.
? We will commission an external evaluator / learning partner to capture progress when the size and nature of the fund requires it.
? We will ask applicants to include a budget for monitoring and evaluation and will include funds for this in the grant, as well as provide funds for any one-off specific evaluation.
? We will aim to co-produce our monitoring and evaluation reports from 2023 onwards.
We are fortunate that our only criterion is that the grant must be used in support of older people in Southwark ? this is made clear in all our communications. On occasion, we receive applications for activities or initiatives that are wider than this, but which include an older group of people. In such cases, we sometimes make a proportional grant.
Following appointment of our first dedicated Grants Manager in 2022, the application form was rationalised in April and then migrated on to a new online grants application portal, Flexi-Grant, in July. New grant application guidelines were devised to accompany the application form. Feedback from applicants suggests that the online application form is light touch and proportionate.
This issue of risk rarely arises. As already mentioned, we know the VCS (Voluntary and Community Sector) organisations who are working with the older population and we support them regularly. Many of the same programmes repeat annually, e.g. befriending, or activities around Christmas time, and so we trust the organisations to deliver what they say they will.
Our grants processes were reviewed and formalised in 2022. Applicant organisations have the opportunity to have a discussion with the Grants Manager about their proposal, prior to applying (which helps determine eligibility), and feedback is offered on a first draft. The final application is then assessed against assessment criteria and forwarded with assessment and recommendation to the Grants Committee for decision within 5 working days. Applicants appreciate the speed of decision making; it also means that quarterly Grants Committee meetings can be used for review of grants awarded and reach rather than pouring over the detail of multiple grant applications.
Our ability to award multi-year grants is dependent on securing an almshouses re-development deal, which would contribute additional funds to the grants budget. This is work in progress.
Provided that the target of the application is older people, then all our grants are unrestricted; alternatively, it could be argued that all our grants are restricted to be used in support of older people. We do provide core funding support, for example, towards the salary costs of a support worker, and sometimes for physical equipment. In light of the Covid-19 crisis, grants that had been made pre-covid were repurposed to meet the unique challenges it represents.
We have developed close working relationships with the organisations we fund; many of our own older members and residents use the facilities, services and activities that we fund through these organisations. We trust them to do what they say they will, and we share a common purpose of trying to address the problems of isolation, loneliness and reduced mobility that affect older people.
In 2022 we introduced a light touch end of grant report form, mainly qualitative, for funded organisations and migrated it to the online portal. We only request the information that we would use in our own reporting/publicity. Completed reports are reviewed and circulated to our Grants Committee.
we will review and update criteria and application guidance to ensure it is as clear as possible in terms of who can and can?t apply, what they can apply for and the information that we will need from them. We will also make it clear why we need certain information e.g., for reporting purposes. We will also look to be flexible and supportive with our application process where groups are having challenges such as digital issues in regards to completing the form. Will respond in a timely manner to all enquiries- clear timescales for contact and maximum turnaround times.
We continue to check and challenge the questions we ask to ensure that we really need to ask them and to ensure that the length of the forms are proportionate to the level of funding being applied for. We will review the questions and ensure that applicants are interpreting what we are asking in the right ways. In our monitoring we ask them how they found the process.
Our due diligence checks are proportionate to the level of funding being applied for and comparable within the sector. We are willing to take some risks in terms of due diligence being conditions of grants in some circumstances, but we have to ensure we are also meeting the level of risk that our funders often require. We are looking at a ?trusted supplier? status when due diligence has been checked and will not be re-checked within a certain time period if a member applied for further funding.
We always look to be clear on our timeframes and if there are occasions we can?t, we will ensure that the applicants understand the process that is being worked through with their application. Where we can?t be clear on our timeframes, this will be on occasions where grant applications have been solicited and we are supporting the applicants so are able to update the regularly about the status of their application.
We enable members to request further feedback regarding why their application was not successful. We are not currently transparent in relation to how we are selecting members to be part of solicited grant programmes, we will look to develop a system where we record why these groups have been selected above others so this is clear should we be challenged.
We look to influence both funders we are working with and more broadly in regards to being increasingly flexible with their grantee?s. We continue to be approachable to have conversations with members about any changes they wish to make to their grant and how they need to spend it ? where we are able to we will continue to be flexible
We will continue to review our terms and conditions to ensure that they are clear and understandable for grantees and also ensure that they understand that we are approachable. There will always be clear contact details and a point person that they can contact if they need to. We also will be transparent with where the grant monies are coming from e.g. national lottery or other gambling monies
We will continue to ensure that reporting is proportionate to the size of the grant. We will therefore continue to challenge the questions that we ask and review how we use the data in order to look at where we can make this process lighter touch and simpler for grantees. We will look to manage expectations of our funders in regard to the data and information they can expect to receive based on the levels of grant funding.
We are committed to working with purpose and to clearly explain grant-making criteria.
We will only ask for information necessary to inform our trustees? decision on the grant request.
We accept an element of risk is involved in awarding grant funding and will lay out clear financial parameters to be met by applicants.
We will process applications in the fastest possible time, with an average turnaround of less than two months from receipt of fully completed application.
We will maintain open channels of communication with all applicants, including feedback on unsuccessful bids. Grant award information is shared publicly via the 360 Giving portal.
We will consider unrestricted funding for organisations with which we have a long-term, trusted relationship and will respond positively to changing needs which may require a re-allocation of resources for restricted grants.
We aim to be honest and open in our communications, maintaining appropriate supportive dialogue with our funded organisations and speedy, efficient response to new applicants.
We recognise the need for organisations to focus on their hands-on work and will ensure efficient monitoring and evaluation processes to produce reliable and effective reporting.
We have a clear timeline which is always included in the application guidelines, so people know when to expect to hear back from us with a yes/no answer; usually around 6 weeks from the application deadline so we try to turn it around fairly quickly.
We are considering changing the evaluation process and are currently having internal discussions. Hearing examples where funders have simply asked their grantee how they think they should be evaluated, we are now exploring taking this approach for the future round.
We allow newly-formed groups to apply for funding from us, even if this means in those cases they might not have a full set of accounts ready to share. In addition to this, as long as the grantee communicates with us in good time (advance notice) we have in the past allowed for the grant to either be paused or to be re-directed towards a different project if circumstances have changed.
Same as above, we do allow for some flexibility if circumstances change beyond anyone’s control. The best example was during the pandemic, we allowed for the grants to be used in different ways than what was approved from the application forms.
Our guidelines document is comprehensive – it includes the criteria that our decision-making group uses for scoring application (this is a new addition). When sending the results, the feedback is always personalised and comprehensive, including tips and sometimes making connections. We always offer a follow-up call in cases where the person/organisation that applied wishes to delve into more detail about our decision-making process.
As a business improvement district that works with 400 businesses in London Bridge, we open a lot of our existing resources and networking opportunities to our grantees too, even though most of them don’t always take us up on the offer. But those that have done, have managed to grow fruitful relationships with businesses in the area – which is always the end game!
As mentioned above, as long as there is strong communication and advance notice, we are prepared to allow for changes in how the grant is spent. We allow for the application to be for project only/ core costs only/ both project and core costs, and there is no specific threshold to be met.
We regularly update our grantees about various opportunities, either from us or from some of our business members, as and when relevant. For example, PwC organises their big One Firm One Day volunteering event so we send out information about that in case any of our grantees would need support from volunteers through that initiative, or when businesses move and have furniture to donate etc. We always try to keep our grantees in the loop so they can make the most of some of these opportunities, if relevant to them.
We run two types of grants. For the small grants that are for a limited amount of time only, the application process is very simple: we keep forms to a minimum in terms of word count and information asked for; same for the evaluation process. For the long-term and larger grants the application process will have 3 stages hence it’s more comprehensive and there is quarterly reporting/touching base.
We will only approach partners we feel are well-positioned to deliver impact for causes we are focused on each year, to increase the likelihood of their receiving a grant.
We will invite them to participate on a call to share their plans for the year ahead and will avoid a laborious paper application process.
We send shortlisted candidates a list of points for discussion, inviting relevant parties to participate in a call with our Programme Director and Trustees. Where possible, we only request documentation which applicants will have already produced for other parties.
We are conscious of the bureaucratic burden on our partners and are mindful of not prolonging due diligence checks. We remain flexible as to the agreed scope and timing of grant spend and avoid overtly bureaucratic requests for evidence of impact.
We are transparent with applicants about the duration of our grant decision-making and allocation process. We have an open dialogue about when and how funding support is most needed and factor that into our decisions.
Maintaining partnerships based on trust is paramount to our grant-making commitment. We always strive to be open about our aims and procedures and give constructive feedback where we feel it can be beneficial.
We recognise the full costs associated with running a VCSE organisation and encourage grant applicants to include operational costs in their funding requests. We are also committed to granting unrestricted funding and trusting our partners to know how those funds can be most impactfully allocated.
We do not ask for applications.
We have a long term partnership agreement with one charity to whom we commit 80% of our funding.
We set the overall vision and goal and work together with them to find the best way of it being achieved.
They do not have to repeatedly apply for funding. We agree budgets at the beginning of each year and adjust them as circumstances change.
For the remaining 20% we do our own homework about who is making impact in the areas of interest to us and offer unrestricted funding.
We work together with our partner to achieve our common aim.
The questions we ask are related to how we are doing against our pre agreed plan.
We have given them a long term commitment (with no end date) to our partner.
We are giving them almost all our funding.
We are open to them changing the approach in order to achieve our common aim.
There is no particular need for urgency. They get paid their fixed costs quarterly in advance and all other costs are met (within an agreed framework). We respond quickly if they do have a question.
Everything is entirely open book.
As above. If circumstances change or if they have new ideas, we are open to taking a different approach to achieve the overall goal.
We agree a plan at the beginning of the year and speak regularly to gauge progress against this plan.
Our aim is to have standardised reporting that makes it as easy as possible for everyone to keep track of progress.
We encourage applicants to speak to us before submitting an application and also hold monthly drop ins to allow people to ask us any questions – either prior to applying or during the life of the grant. We also use these sessions to build understanding – e.g. how to do an application that includes full cost recovery.
We have reduced the number of questions and amount of text needed. We also use assessors to bring applications to life. Usually this is via a telephone call.
We have introduced a small grants process with a typical 4-week turnaround for awards. We have also made a commitment to monthly panels for our Cost of Living Fund applications.
We aim to make our guidance notes as clear and useful as possible. We have also posted short films about applying on our website. We are also reviewing our Grants Policy to enable us to be more open and flexible in our approach to funding.
We aim to be flexible so if circumstances change or problems occur with a grant we encourage grant holders to call us and we can agree on how the grant can continue.
We do a monthly newsletter on what funding is available. We have also improved our website to make it more clear which funds are open and how likely an application is to be funded
We recognise most of our awards are for around £5000 so aim to be proportionate in terms of application form information, and monitoring requirements.
We want our funding to reflect the needs of our communities, and so we promise to stand by VCSE organisations. Covering the eight commitments, we will offer flexible funding, be open and transparent about our priorities, ensure that our delivery is effective, and encourage these flexible approaches in our partners to make a successful impact.
All UK Youth funding programmes are accompanied with clear guidance on eligibility and funding criteria including full details on all the questions being asked, so that potential applicants can make an informed decision on whether the fund is a suitable fit for their organisation before they begin the application process.
We are committed to only asking questions relevant and proportionate to the assessment of the fund in question. In some cases we may include additional questions to help us understand more about the situation your organisation is working in or the wider needs of the sector, but these questions are identified as optional.
At UK Youth we pride ourselves on responding quickly to the needs of the sector and distributing funds at pace. Within the Guidance Notes for each fund we will publish the dates by which all applicants will receive notification of the outcome of their application. Typically this is within 6 weeks of the close of applications.
Each UK Youth Fund will clearly state how decisions will be made. Larger funds of over £1m are usually decided upon by an independent panel comprising sector professionals and young people. UK Youth are committed to raising the voice of young people by ensuring they make up 50% of our decision making panels. In the event of a split decision, young people have the casting vote.
During the application window for all open UK Youth funds we provide weekly open access webinars and Q&As. These are open for all potential applicants to hear directly from the UK Youth grants team about the fund in question, how to complete the application form and to ask any questions on how to make a good application.
UK Youth believe it is essential that the demands made on applicants to complete funding application forms and grantees to complete report forms are proportionate to both the level of funding on offer and the size of the organisation applying. We endeavour to adhere to light touch reporting that enables grantees wherever possible to submit information on their grant use in multiple formats and styles.
We ask potential applicants to get in touch first and we always try to have honest conversations about their proposal and its ‘fit’/chance of success. We significantly reduced the number of questions and length of the forms. We invite all applicants to have a conversation first so we can advice against/encourage/advice them before applying.
We only ask for information we need to assess applications against our published criteria and we now have very short reporting requirements. For unrestricted grants we do not ask for bespoke reports – we ask people to upload their income and expenditure (management accounts) to trigger payments, and have annual visits/conversations with them.
We apply a proportionate approach to ‘risk’ depending on the group in question and adopt a trusting and relational approach to new groups or innovations rather than falling back on conventional due diligence assessments.
We make and communicate decisions very quickly; within two weeks of grants closure for small grants (where staff have delegated authority). We process payments within 2 weeks or so of grant approvals.
We contact everyone who asks for detailed feedback on why applications may not have been approved. We publish criteria against which applications are assessed and let people know the percentage success rate. We try to have open and honest conversations with groups – successful or not successful.
We award unrestricted grants whenever is appropriate and possible, given our geographical restrictions. But we also have restricted grants – this is applicant choice. We will allow changes of request and amount between first and second stage applications if it is useful to the applicant. We will happily consider changes in use of the grant if needed.
Our forms and processes are very different according to the grant programme, so small grants applications are simple, short and turn-around very quick. Reporting requirements for large and small are minimal. As above, we do not apply inappropriate due diligence assessments to smaller or emerging groups.
Our funding priorities and guidelines are published on our website. We encourage applicants to have a conversation with us before they spend time filling in a form, to make sure their application broadly meets our funding criteria and priorities. We provide feedback on draft applications to make sure our trustees have all the information they need. We do not ask our Delegated or Opportunities Fund holders to complete an application form for each new grant.
We will only collect information that we need to make funding decisions. We review our application forms and guidelines on a regular basis and incorporate feedback from grantees or applicants. We will continue to ensure the information asked for in application forms is proportionate to the size of the grant.
We will make sure risk measures are proportionate to the size of the grant and the size of the organisation, by talking with them and being clear on expectations. We are open to funding new approaches or piloting new ideas. Where trustees feel the risks are too high to award the grant, we will provide feedback and be clear about what we would like to see in any revised application.
We are flexible with our application timeline. We assess small grants on a rolling basis. We hold regular meetings for trustees to assess larger applications and have the flexibility to ask for these to be assessed over email if the timeline in tight.
We provide tailored individual feedback on applications, particularly those that are rejected. We will continue to publish our grant information on 360Giving. We conduct an annual grants survey to get feedback on our performance as a grant-maker and make changes to our grant-making practice in light of this feedback.
We are committed to making sure a significant proportion of our funding is multiyear and unrestricted. We contribute towards the essential operating costs of an organisation, not just towards direct project costs. If a grantee?s circumstances change, we are open to adjusting reporting deadlines, project timelines, budgets etc.
Our grant offer letters to grant holders are clear on reporting requirements and time commitments. We look forward to receiving and reading all reports and acknowledge to grantees that we have done so.
We tailor our application and monitoring processes to ensure they are proportionate to the size of grant. Most grantees only report once a year.
We have diverse thematic priorities and varied methods of awarding grants; and, all of our funds follow the same basic principles:
? Our website will be kept up to date with comprehensive and relevant information so that organisations seeking funding can understand at the outset what we fund and how we make funding decisions.
? Our process for applications will be tailored and proportionate to the level of the funding being requested.
? We will work collaboratively with grantees to design each project?s monitoring and evaluation requirements and align these to the grantee?s internal monitoring processes where possible.
? Reporting requested will be proportionate to the scale and complexity of the grant awarded and will seek to allow grantees to use readily available information.
Our website will provide clear application guidelines that are tailored to our different funding programmes. Where we implement a two-stage assessment process we endeavour to ensure that stage one is quick and simple for applicants to complete, seeking only adequate detail to determine if stage two would be required.
Questions that arise as part of the application process will be carefully thought through to ensure they are proportionate, and relevant and seek to add clarity, strength and depth to an application.
We understand the need for applicants to receive a decision within a reasonable timescale, and we will:
? Promptly acknowledge receipt of all applications. Thereafter, we aim to keep applicants informed at all stages of the application process.
? Ensure those funds with specific funding calls adhere to published timescales. Ad hoc applications will receive further contact within four to eight weeks.
? Maintain processes to support urgent applications in a timely manner via our discretionary limits.
We aim to be proportionate in all of our processes:
? The requirements of the application process will be commensurate to the size and complexity of the funding/award applied for.
? We mutually agree on proportionate and relevant monitoring and evaluation processes with each funded organisation.
We are very clear (we think) on our eligibility criteria and what we will / won’t fund. There is an extensive and regularly-updated FAQ section on our web site. We’re also happy to meet or talk with potential applicants prior to them submitting a request. We have an “eligibility quiz” to access our application form, but this relies on people being honest. And we can’t stop people applying even when they are clearly ineligible.
Our application form is pared back to the minimum we think necessary for due diligence purposes. However, we keep this under constant review – and did a major refresh when we changed IT systems earlier in the year. (Could we do better here – quite probably).
Our monitoring form is also just six questions long.
In our recent grants round, we awarded our first batch of unrestricted grants, which might be seen to bring greater risk.
Providing an organisation meets our basic eligibility criteria, we are willing to “take a punt” if the work is clearly of benefit to the local community. We will work with an organisation to address any weaknesses rather than reject out of hand.
Turnround time is about six weeks (maximum) from closing applications to announcing decisions. Each grants round we review our criteria to ensure they are relevant to the funding environment at that time.
We do not automatically provide reject reasons to applicants but are happy to do so on request. We are always upfront that our funding is invariably oversubscribed and we can only fund those applications most closely meeting our priorities.
Making unrestricted grants to a small number of local organisations gives them much greater flexibility to deliver their activities and improve sports services for local people. We want to learn what impact this has on eventual outcomes. We have previously offered organisations the chance to change the purpose of small, restricted grants without reference back to us – but very few recipients actually did !
For the first time following our recent grants round (and after a discussion at the Open & Trusted Funders session last year) we have published details on our web site of success rates, principal reasons for rejection etc. We can refer potential applicants to this when launching future grants rounds.
We propose to continue doing this after each grants round. We could publish some historical data if that were thought to be useful.
Our small “community” grants programme has shorter, simpler application and monitoring forms than for our larger “strategic” grants We do though still do project visits to recipients of smaller awards – and are generally warmly welcomed by them for doing so.
We do not ask prospective applicants to contact us with speculative proposals, instead ?we do the homework? ? using research and referral as our principal route to identify potential grantees and gathering existing information in the public domain before speaking to them. However, we are trying to pitch messaging about our invitation-only approach in a way that does not deter relevant unsolicited enquiries from suitable organisations we might otherwise not hear about. To help people judge if they should make an enquiry, we describe our approach and interests in our online Annual Review and will launch a new, expanded website in 2023 to improve transparency and timely communication of our evolving interests. The website will also be clearer about how we find grantees and make decisions.
We do not use an application form but customise the proposal process to suit the context. We gather publicly available information including accounts, reports and websites before inviting an applicant to put anything in writing, and only ask for additional, relevant information where we need it to help us make a decision. We will accept a copy of an application written for another funder if it is current and relevant to the funding opportunity. We are taking steps to better support organisations we have invited to prepare a written proposal: we aim to be clearer about why we?re interested in them and any particular questions we have about their plans; we aim to build sufficient time into the process to allow us to feedback on an early draft and to have a conversation with us to clarify anything; and to let them be open about how much funding they hope we can give them.
We only use restricted funding where we feel this is appropriate, and try to keep our funding as flexible as possible as the norm. We do not require detailed project plans; if we decide to fund an organisation, we trust them to judge best how to deliver the aims and objectives they have set out. We note grant-related risks in our assessments and aim to make grants in such a way that the risk is mitigated ? e.g. by giving more than requested in some instances. For example, we have increased grants recently in the light of risks created by inflation and will raise this if not taken into account in a proposal budget. We will sometimes invest in helping fragile organisations remain sustainable and ride out challenges if we think their importance merits it, or support organisational development alongside programme funding. We recognise that grantees are likely to assume they cannot ask a funder for more help, so are aiming to reassure grantees they can share challenges or bumps in the road with us, so we can explore opportunities to help.
We do not operate fixed timetables for decisions and make decisions between formal meetings if urgency requires. We recognise that timeliness is one of the things that can add value to our funding. When we are in dialogue with a potential grantee, we are making more effort to ensure they are clear on our timelines and are advised of any changes. We are trying to plan ahead for when grants are ending to allow for a timely conversation about the possibility of renewed funding.
We publish grant-making data using the 360 Giving standard and provide statistics about the kind of grants we make and to whom in our online Annual Review. Our proactive, staged process leads to few rejections at the final proposal stage ? and we always give feedback in such cases. If we have asked an applicant to spend time providing a bespoke written proposal or hosting a visit for us and we then choose not to make a grant to them, we make an ex gratia payment (usually £250) in recognition of their time. We operate a real time anonymous feedback system for applicants and grantees, with responses collated and reviewed twice a year. We provide a report to grantees about what feedback we?re getting and what we?re doing in response. We are developing a new website and plan to adopt ?working in the open? principles that will make it easier for people to discover how we work, what we?re doing and learning.
We only use restricted funding where necessary and are implementing a more intentional use of what we call ?designated unrestricted? funding instead of restricted grants whenever possible. We have included a section in our proposal cover sheet to explain if and why we feel we need to restrict a grant instead of the default of unrestricted. We monitor and report on the proportion of u/r grants annually in our Annual Review. We often include an additional unrestricted ?top-up? to grants that are provided to meet defined costs or specific projects if we believe the organisation may have limited access to unrestricted income streams. Although we are limited in the extent to which we can formally commit to multi-year funding, we are aiming to be clearer at the outset about the intent or expectation to make a repeat grant (or not) when a current grant expires.
We are working to improve the clarity of expectations with all grantees at the grant set-up stage ? covering outcomes; communication and reporting; and learning opportunities. We have introduced grant set-up calls as standard to go over these things and also to explain why it is we?ve chosen to make the grant and what we are particularly interested in about the organisation and its work. We are also aiming to be clearer at the outset about expectations regarding the end of the grant and the possibility of further funding. We are also aiming to give more insight into how we’re using what we’re learning from reports etc. in our feedback to grantees.
We continue to take a flexible and light touch approach to both proposals and reports. We will accept reports written for other funders as a baseline, only asking for additional information if we need it to support our learning. We are working to ensure greater clarity regarding reporting expectations and what we wish to learn from our grantees at grant set-up and throughout our funding relationship and are producing new guidance for grantees on this. We are piloting having calls or meetings with grantees to replace written reports in some instances.
We review our eligibility criteria each funding round, with the aim to be as transparent as possible about our funding programmes. Eligibility criteria and timetables for each of our programmes are published in one place on our website and are regularly reviewed.
The staff team endeavours to be friendly and approachable in answering queries on the phone and via email that are not obvious from our published guidance. We also strive to communicate clearly on social media, sharing deadlines for funding applications and news from our grant holders.
We are also committed to undertaking regular external reviews of applicants to get their feedback on all aspects of our application process ? alongside a commitment to acting (where possible) on any feedback.
Lastly, we look for opportunities to make funding available in partnership with other organisations ? and Wolfson has a long track-record of these partnership funding programmes. This helps to ensure that applicants and our grant-making can benefit from specialist expertise and, in many cases, reduces the number of applications necessary for an organisation or individual.
We are committed to a two-stage process. Our Stage 1 application is a simple online form focussed on assessing the eligibility of an application and its potential for funding .
Applicants are only asked to prepare a full, detailed application at Stage 2 if this threshold has been passed. We do not have a set template for Stage 2 applications, which allows applicants to present their project in a way that brings it to life. The questions we ask in a Stage 1 application are listed on our website, so that people can see what an application entails. We also provide guidance documents and examples on our website which sets out what are looking for in a Stage 2 application.
Over the past five years across all of our programmes, at least 80% of stage two applicants received funding.
We review our questions and application guidance with each funding round to ensure that we only ask for information that is relevant and reasonable.
Our funding timetables are published clearly on our website. We also regularly share application deadlines on social media.
As a funder of major capital projects (average grant size is about £100,000), we inevitably have a slightly longer than average timetable. With recent initiatives such as our Sustainability Fund, we have adapted our application and assessment process so that we can communicate funding decisions earlier. This enabled us to respond more quickly to the needs of our applicants.
Our grants data is published on our website and on 360Giving after each funding round.
During the Stage 2 application process we give applicants the opportunity to respond to comments or questions raised by external expert reviewers.
We provide written feedback at stage one to all applicants. At stage two we offer all unsuccessful applicants a telephone interview to discuss the reasons for not being able to fund.
Our current Strategic Framework (2020-24) states ?we aim to be a listening, responsive and open organisation, supported by an office that provides high standards of support to applicants.?
We understand that the fundraising landscape has become more challenging in recent years, particularly following the pandemic, so we have relaxed some of our funding policies, such as reducing our match funding requirement from 50% to 25%. We will continue to listen and adapt our processes accordingly.
Our grant conditions are published online as well as provided to grantees when an award is made. We attempt to keep any conditions light touch. We will continue to ask about grant conditions and reporting requirements in our independent applicant survey. In the (hopefully unlikely) event of a significant problem, we have a formal complaints process. Our aim is to have high-quality relationships at the heart of what we do and, in doing so, to break down perceived power dynamics.
We aim to use our communication channels to communicate clearly about our application process and to share stories from our grant holders to highlight the work they do.
Our reporting requirements are published online. Organisations can submit their brief progress reports through an online form or provide an update in their own preferred format.
On our website, we give clear guidelines to applicants about our priority areas and our eligibility criteria, including what we are more and less likely to fund.
When applicants email or call to discuss a project idea, we are honest about the number of applicants applying and the amount we are likely to fund each quarter, and often express this as a percentage success rate.
We ask for feedback on the application process at the end of every application form. This is then reviewed once or twice a year and where feasible we will act upon any suggestions for refinement or improvement.
We publish all of our grants on our website, and also share the data with 360Giving.
Our application form was developed a few years ago with the help of Bayes (then Cass) Business School. However, we believe this could now be further refined, such as not requesting full accounts when they can be readily found online.
As a relatively small funder we do not have to take significant risks. We are willing to accept applications from newly formed charities or not-for-profits, and we often take low-level risks on unproven tech initiatives such as chatbots or apps.
We are clear about the deadlines for our quarterly funding, and all applicants are informed of the timeline for shortlisting and final decisions. We aim to inform those who do not make the shortlist within three weeks of the deadline, and unsuccessful shortlisted applicants can expect to hear immediately (one to two days) after the decision-making committee have met.
We inform unsuccessful applicants about the number who have applied, and give them suggestions of where else to apply for digital funding. Due to limited resources we are not able to give specific feedback to each applicatant (especially those which did not reach the longlist).
Although we do not provide unrestricted funding (as we are a specialist and relatively small funder), we do try to be flexible and our funding can include requests for IT hardware and software. We are also understanding of changes to grantees? projects or their circumstances, and will be flexible to help them meet their goals.
When a grant is offered, grantees are asked to agree to our terms, conditions and guidelines, and to provide a final report and occasionally a mid-year update.
Our reporting requirements are typically light-touch and proportionate to the size of the grant. Other than the agreed requirements, we would not expect to hear from our grantees unless they chose to contact us. We have a simple templated form for them to complete, or they may choose to present the information in a way that they choose
We will have clear criteria for each funding pot that is clearly communicated.
We will take a targeted approach to advertising grants to organisations that are eligible.
We will ensure those with unsuccessful applications are notified within 14 days and given feedback.
Our applications should take no longer than approximately 8 hours to complete and no more than 1000 words.
In applications and monitoring, we will only ask for information that is in line with our funding priorities, will support our decision-making process and help us evaluate impact.
We will only ask for information that is not publicly available.
We are prepared to fund smaller and newer organisations who cannot demonstrate a history of financial stability. We are happy to take risks that are calculated and strategic. We are keen to fund new projects and initiatives but always conduct careful due diligence on these organisations. We accept that these projects may not always go to plan and where appropriate we will support changes to the use of the funding.
We are not willing to take risks that breach due diligence checks eg. safeguarding.
We have a relational approach to grant-giving and believe that transparent and authentic relationships help to mitigate risk.
We will be clear about the timescale of the grant window, allow enough time for applications to be made, and stick to deadlines.
We will make decisions as quickly and efficiently as possible.
For each fund we will be clear about when a decision will be made by and when they can expect to receive the money by. Usually, we will aim to inform applicants of a decision within 30 days and then pay them within 14 days.
We will be open about funding criteria and priorities and have these advertised clearly on our website and a link to this information on the application form.
We will be open about our timelines, when we intend to make a decision and distribute the funding.
We will be transparent about our decisions and give feedback on both successful and unsuccessful decisions.
We will be open to learning and adapting our processes to improve the experience for those applying for funding. We will be open to feedback on our application and monitoring process and collect this on an annual basis.
We will offer different grants that cover core costs or project-based funding, as well as direct giving to young people for personal development and educational purposes.
We understand that the way the grant is spent may differ slightly to the original budget plan. We ask to be informed if this is the case and will support grant awardees to work around any challenges.
The funding we give out is mostly monitored based on impact, learning, and how we can maximise our members offer to the community, in addition to some quantitative outcomes.
We will adjust our communications for anyone with accessibility issues, e.g. speak with someone in person or virtually if they have difficulty reading.
We will ensure deadlines and timelines for each funding round are communicated clearly via our website and on the application form.
We will not be a passive funder. We will support grant awardees before, throughout the process and after they receive the money too. This could look like helping organisations develop their safeguarding policy or introducing people to our network to reach their goals.
We offer small grants of up to £6,000 which means we will keep the application and monitoring process short and simple to reflect this.
We will offer continuous support both virtually and in person for the entire process.
We will hold a webinar on bid writing and fundraising to support our members to improve their skills.
We will offer repeat grants because the grants we give out are small.
Our funding criteria are outlined in our applicant guidance notes, and current priorities are updated regularly on our website alongside success rates. If we find ourselves receiving applications for certain types of work that are unlikely to be funded, then we will:
? Update our criteria accordingly
? Recommend to applicants that they do not reapply and explore whether they deliver other work that is a better match with our priorities or signpost them to other funders.
We commit to seeking regular feedback about this in our annual stakeholder survey and acting on what we?re told.
We have streamlined our application and reporting forms. For larger grants, we have stripped back our first stage application form to an expression of interest. We have streamlined data collection requirements for reporting and have only kept the data that:
? We require for our own funders
? We regularly use and publish
We continue to regularly seek feedback and act on the results, including for:
? The design of the application and reporting questions
? The level of application and reporting requirements.
We have made changes to our eligibility for some funding streams so that newer organisations are eligible to apply (previously organisations must be at least 1 year old on the funding deadline, for some funding streams they are now eligible as long as they are legally constituted on the funding deadline). Our appetite for risk has increased, as we acknowledge that newer organisations may have limited financial and delivery track records for us to review and have built this into our assessment processes.
We understand that organisations continue to face increased financial pressures in the current climate. So long as they have budgeting and financial reporting structures in place, we are satisfied with their financial management practices and won?t ask for reassurances about their current or future financial position.
We understand that the situation continues to rapidly change for organisations, as a result of the pandemic, the cost-of-living crisis and challenges such as climate change. We therefore understand that plans are likely to change and need to change at short notice and we accept that plans that were submitted in an application form may need to alter once a decision is made and at any point during the lifecycle of the grant and we accept this ?risk? when we make decisions. We continue to offer flexibility and support, wherever possible and allow organisations to make changes to delivery plans and budgets throughout the lifecycle of their grant.
We will continue to approve project changes with speed and without unnecessary bureaucracy. The majority of our funding decisions are made within 12 weeks. We publish our application deadlines with good notice and always meet the published deadlines. In 2020 we speeded up response times on our larger grants fund. Should we run any emergency response funds, we would ensure a very quick turnaround time for both decisions and payments (the benchmark from our 2020 emergency fund was one week for decisions; on average grantholders were paid within 23 days).
We always provide feedback to unsuccessful applicants and are open about success rates. If there are common reasons why applicants are rejected, we will publish these and integrate them into our applicant guidance. We will continue to seek feedback from applicants about our decision-making and acting on what they tell us. We publish our grants data on 360Giving, regularly update our public project map and send lists of new grantholders to key stakeholders in each region.
We have a Grant Changes policy which allows for flexibility of plans in response to the ever-changing environment. We ensure our funded partners are made aware of this at several points throughout their grant. We already provide grants on a full cost recovery basis and are continuing to seek to integrate additional core funding opportunities into our future funding strategy.
Every grant is assigned a dedicated Grants Officer, who is introduced alongside the funding offer and is the first port of call for queries and support. We have introduced induction sessions and an induction pack for newly funded organisations that pulls together all key information into one central place. We?re developing a funded partner communications policy to ensure our communication is streamlined and purposeful. We have stripped back our grant recommendations to focus on ?need to have? rather than the ?nice to haves?. The funding agreement outlines grant requirements and deadlines. Reporting templates and other grant requirements documents are all published on our website; across various guidance documents we message the importance of allocating enough time and budget from the grant to fulfil them.
Grant requirements are proportionate to the grant size. We know our previous reporting requirements were onerous. A new, streamlined framework was introduced in April 2021 which allows for greater flexibility in reporting. It has been designed in consultation with current grantholders and enables them to submit reports to us that they have written for other funders.
Prior to Northern Rock Foundation’s closure in 2015, we published Being There, focusing on the Foundation’s distinctive approach to grant-making. Many of the practices now being championed through the Open and Trusting grant-making campaign were prominent in the Northern Rock model, including:
Getting the best out of relationships
The Foundation’s interaction with applicants and grantees was based on grant-making principles which were established early on, including:
Taking a lead and learning from experience
The Foundation was willing to take hard decisions and risks to achieve change, and encouraged others to take risks by both expecting and tolerating failure on occasions, so long as lessons were learned and shared: ‘Trustees are used to risk. They don’t worry if things go wrong. A fundamental principle with grantees is that we are not here to apportion blame’.
We identified key learning points for other trusts and foundations, including:
Flexible funding
The Foundation’s practice of ‘focusing on the problem’ and, linked to that, their commitment to ‘managing risk through relationships not systems’ meant that Programme Managers were not constrained by an arbitrary set of rules around, for example, duration of funding or reporting requirements. Differentiated arrangements were put in place according to what seemed most appropriate in relation to the problem being tackled or task being undertaken, with the emphasis on letting organisations set their own objectives, not imposing them.
Other funders might want to consider the possible benefits of being less encumbered by unnecessary and restrictive rules and, linked to this, how they can create the space for more engaged relationships with grantees and a more flexible approach to funding. Approaches which frame relationships primarily within terms of administrative process and “outcomes promised and delivered” may be inherently riskier and less productive than relationships based on knowledge and trust in a progressively more unstable climate.
Keeping a strong core
Although Programme Managers were given a great deal of licence and freedom, their work was shaped and held by a strong sense of the “whole”. This was, in effect, a set of values and principles that became a common lens through which decisions were made. Without this, grant-making can become disparate and incoherent. Such values and principles need to be shaped, shared and understood at all levels and reviewed and renewed as circumstances and people change.
Exercising judgements
Finally, we were struck by this quote from one of the Programme Managers: ‘We never sought or pretended to be fair’. For the Foundation, the challenge was different: how can judgements about who, what and where to invest in be as grounded, informed and legitimate as possible? That commitment to a deep integrity of grant-making required engagement, relationship-building (recognising the importance of face-to-face contact for both grant holders and grants staff) and patience. For the many trusts and foundations that try to manage the inherent unfairness of grant-making by adopting processes (such as scoring) that have the veneer of fairness, there is an important lesson here.
Read moreWe are proud to join with our friends at IVAR and across the funding community to call for the achievements of 2020 to strengthen our work for the future. Over 400 organisations signed our ‘We stand with the sector’ statement at the start of the crisis, and we believe that the eight funder commitments are the natural next step to take for funders who have already pledged to adapt activities, be financially flexible, and to listen. We encourage all of our members to sign up to the commitments, and to make practical changes where necessary, so that together we can enable our communities to thrive.
James Banks, CEO at London Funders
This period has begun to open up some honest conversations about the pre-Covid-19 state of foundation and charitable trust support (or lack of it) for the BAME sector – which were really difficult to have beforehand. There appears to be much more of a willingness to listen and to find ways to respond. The impact has been that literally thousands of BAME-led organisations have now applied for funding and/or capacity building support, which has brought to the fore a real richness and diversity within the sector, as well as huge swathes of imagination and creativity. The flexibility and simplicity that has been seen during this period has enabled Ubele to create an infrastructure which has helped us extend our reach from local to national. However, it is mainly short-term funding and we are left with a deep sense of uncertainty, even as levels of demand for our services grow.
Yvonne Field, CEO and Founder at Ubele Initiative
Charities are vital, and they have, and will continue to, face challenges around generating funding to deliver their activities. For this reason, it is important that, as grant-making organisations, we take more risks. The pandemic has brought an opportunity for us to adapt and better support the sector. We have streamlined our processes and procedures to enable funding to reach communities efficiently, and at pace. This has supported the emergency efforts being driven in local communities by local charitable organisations. It has enabled communities to respond, and enabled funders to take a more trusting approach to grant-making; accepting that those organisations delivering much needed support for communities, are the people that know what the issues are, and how best to address them.
Orla Black, Grants Director at The Community Foundation for Northern Ireland
The Allen Lane Foundation has always striven to consider the stress and time involved in the funding process for groups and organisations. We like to think we have a light-touch process which recognises the size of grants we award. We remain committed to taking some of the risk with those we fund and giving honest feedback both to successful and unsuccessful applicants. We can always do better and this initiative commits us to that, do it better and always have at the forefront of our work those at the front line.
Tim Cutts, Executive Secretary at Allen Lane Foundation
Covid-19 has shown funders what can be achieved when we break our own rules and work together. Let’s take this opportunity to face up to the cost of our individual requirements on the organisations we fund, and make a change.
Gina Crane, Director of Communications and Learning at Esmée Fairbairn Foundation
