Flexible funding is one of the clearest ways funders can show trust in the organisations they support – but it can also feel like one of the trickiest commitments to make.
The Eric Wright Charitable Trust, a North West–based funder, chose to face those questions head-on, piloting a programme of three-year grants with long-standing partners.
Emma Goldthorpe reflects on why they took their first steps into multi-year funding, how they managed the risks, and the difference it has made for both the Trust and the charities they support.
What does ‘open and trusting grant-making’ mean to you?
For us, open and trusting grant-making means getting to know the charities, building strong relationships, and being honest about our own restrictions so they feel they can be honest with us.
We always say: we achieve more when we trust each other. We’ve had so many open conversations with charities where they’ve told us about the challenges they face. When we really understand what they’re going through, we can respond – sometimes by changing something in our own programme, other times by connecting them with another charity in a similar situation. It’s ‘warts and all’, but that openness on both sides makes the relationship stronger.
What prompted you to explore multi-year funding?
We have nine-month catch-up meetings with the charities that receive a grant over £5,000. At those meetings we always ask: “What do you need from us as a funder?”
The answers were like a constant knock on the door that needed answering. Charities were telling us, again and again, that they needed the commitment of multi-year funding; funding to cover core costs, not just new projects; and uncomplicated reporting. They told us those things would unshackle them to do their best work.
That got us thinking – how can we do this, and what’s the easiest way for us to offer it? The answer was to trial it. So we said, let’s see how we can do it – and that’s where our multi-year pilot scheme came from.
How did the pilot work in practice?
We chose 23 charities we had worked with for a long time. We offered them three-year grants at the same level as their existing annual grants. That group represented about two-thirds of our larger-grant charities and about 30% of our overall programme.
We knew there were barriers. Our income is generated annually from the Group’s profits, and we don’t have an endowment to draw upon. This meant committing funding for future years before the income was secured.
We shared our problem with the charities. They understood the situation and were still prepared to enter into this with us. Our trustees considered the risks and reviewed our reserves policy. We freed up some of those reserves so we could cover the commitments if needed. That gave our board confidence that we could meet our commitments if required.
What impact has it had on you as a funder?
It’s helped us think differently about what our grants are for. Instead of matching our giving to our processes, we now see grants as enablers for charities to do their best work.
For us as a funder, our eyes are wide open and we’re much more receptive – we’re on a mission of learning to figure out how to do what we do better. We’re talking to other funders more about how they do things. We ask our own grantees what other funders are doing that helps them.
And what impact has it had on the organisations you support?
Charities talk about a sense of relief. They’ve told us that multi-year funding has freed them to think about their strategy and growth, instead of worrying every year about whether the money will be there.
One grantee reported that flexible funding allowed them to cover essentials like salary top-ups, paying the real living wage, utilities, safety checks and HR services. Having those needs met stabilised their infrastructure so they could focus on service delivery. They said that when their core needs are met, they can be more responsive, creative and efficient – and that in future years they will continue to advocate for this model of funding.
Another charity explained that when they set up services, they are in effect making a promise to their service users: that courses and support groups will be there when they say they will. Multi-year funding means they can provide that constant platform. That gives the charity a very good reputation for being reliable – people then trust them and use their services.
Do you have any standout examples?
One charity used our multi-year funding to create a digital hub. At first it was just an aspiration, but over three years they built it up into a platform that now works in partnership with national organisations like Cancer Research. It’s transformed the way they interact with their service users – and they’ve even won an award for it.
Another example is more personal. We funded a specific role in a charity and we’ve been able to watch that individual grow and develop over the years. They stayed with the organisation, upskilled, and invested themselves more deeply. It’s been such a privilege to see that and be part of that journey.
What advice would you give to funders thinking about multi-year funding?
My first piece of advice would be: give it a go. Ask your charities what they need. That question opens the door to an honest conversation and makes them feel heard.
Start small if you need to – just pick a handful of grantees. Identify the barriers you’re worried about, whether it’s reporting, reserves, or staff time, and work out how to manage them.
And don’t assume a grant is too small to spread across several years. Some charities actually prefer that because it avoids a sudden spike in reserves, which can make them look “too wealthy” to other funders.
If your trustees are hesitant, bring the charities themselves into the conversation. If trustees can visit a charity or even just hear directly from one, it makes a big difference. When you walk into a charity you’re immediately surrounded by what’s important to them and how they work – it bridges the gap much better than us just relaying survey results.