Join our learning community of over 140 foundations who are on a journey to making and managing grants differently.
Our Open and Trusting Steering Group meets twice a year, to:
Our membership includes:
Chaired by André Clark of Lloyds Bank Foundation of England and Wales and IVAR Trustee.
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.
We are working to be as open and transparent as possible on our requirements. We have recently revised wording on our website for each priority, as well as a creating a page which sets out how we prioritise applications. Our website also now includes information on how we make decisions.
We provide access to application form questions in advance. We also publish success rates, and give the possibility for questions, call, emails in advance of an application to ensure applicants can discuss their application where helpful.
Details of all our grants are published through 360 Giving on Grant Nav.
We aspire to only ask relevant questions and have removed any questions which are not necessary our application form. The application includes a two-page summary of the organisation/ work, 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.
We can make smaller grants through delegated authority up to £10k, with applications turned around within 1-2 weeks as necessary. We also have the flexibility to make emergency grants in-between meetings.
When an application is declined during the shortlisting process, we inform them of this decision as soon as possible, rather than it having to wait for our quarterly board meeting process.
We aim to be open about our decisions. ABCT contacts every declined applicant with a letter providing an overall reason for declination and offers a feedback phone call with a staff member. Information provided on feedback calls is improving through ongoing work to interrogate our reasons for decisions, and documenting these clearly.
We are transparent about success rates. These are published on our website.
Details of all our grants are published through 360 Giving on Grant Nav.
Our closed programmes (special initiatives and anchor) have less information available online. This is an area where we could do some more work to ensure transparency.
ABCT provide unrestricted funding through all three of our funding streams. In 2023-2024 80% 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.
Where grantholders require changes to the timetable of a grant, we look to accommodate requests where we can.
Going forwards, multi year funding will now be the default for grants.
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.
We have added an anonymous feedback form on our website, and our signatures to try to ensure there are routes for feedback.
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 work to draft guidance which is as clear and simple as possible based on learning and feedback from frontline organisations and funders. We hold online events to hear from potential applicants when we launch funding rounds, and update guidance as needed including FAQs, timelines and information on the process.
We aim to only ask for information which we will use as part of this process. If information is available elsewhere i.e. from the Charity Commission or an organisation’s website or if we already hold it, we won’t ask for it again. We regularly review the questions we ask when designing application forms to ensure we only capture what we need.
We explain our process for assessments and how this is scored as part of the guidance documents. We aim to be proportionate in our approach to risk including in our financial assessments, and won’t ask for more than we need to make a decision. We recognise that organisations have different structures and operating models and aim to offer flexibility in how funding is used wherever possible.
We have had discussions with our Grants Committee about appetite for risk, and proportionality, but recognise we still have work to do with our trustees when considering funding for smaller more community based organisations, or for lobbying/campaigning against some of the root causes that lead to a legal need.
Some of this will also be dependent on the requirements of our primary funders.
When planning grant programmes we aim to work at a pace which recognises the need for funding. We publish and stick to our timetables for grant rounds, ensuring that decisions are made as quickly as possible and that these are communicated promptly to applicants. This includes scheduling Grant Committees as and when needed to meet these deadlines and avoid delays.
We will always provide generic feedback to unsuccessful applicants for all our grant programmes. We are a small team which means we aren’t always able to provide individual/tailored feedback as we are usually very oversubscribed for our funding, but where there is a two stage process we will endeavour to provide individual feedback at application stage to those which are unsuccessful.
We don’t publish success rates as our programmes are varied and distinct making it difficult to know the % success rate. However, we do publish information about how many organisations we aim to fund given the total funding amount available and likely grant awards.
We also share our grants data on 360 Giving.
We now award multi-year core funding wherever possible and communicate clearly to ensure that funded organisations understand there is flexibility in how this can be used to meet the aims of the funding programme.
Recently in response to the recent spate of violence and hate crime targeted at advice providers (2024), we proactively contacted all funded organisations to reassure them that it was ok if they needed to repurpose or change how the funding was spent in response to the situation.
We also encourage organisations to contact us if they want to change how funding is used, promoting honest dialogue which recognises that priorities and needs may change during the funding period.
We publicise clear guidance and information on our funding programmes and timelines so that organisations understand what is expected of them. We hold online events so that organisations can provide feedback and ask questions and guidance or communications are then tweaked as needed. These are also recorded and shared.
We aim to be upfront and honest about the aims of funding and the MEL requirements so organisations are aware what will be required of them from the start. This includes implementing a pilot period to enable organisations to test and review the MEL forms before being required to collate data. The team is on hand to respond to any queries and are available to meet and discuss as needed.
We take a relational approach to working with funded partners encouraging honest and open communications, including sharing the evidence and learning we gather with them, and explaining how this is being used to make the case for further investment in free legal advice provision.
This is difficult in instances where we are distributing funding on behalf of a primary funder that requires specific data and evidence about funded services. Where this is the case, we are up front about what will be required in terms of MEL and we communicate how this is used and for what purpose. We also share the insight more broadly with funded organisations.
For our own programmes we work to be non-extractive and light touch in our approach to reporting ensuring we clearly communicate why and how insight will be used, developing frameworks which build on what organisations are already capturing. The aim is that the information we collate is useful to support funded organisations to demonstrate the difference they make.
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.
Our template application forms are reviewed for each new grant round. 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. After it became clear to us that our guidance notes were not always being read by applicants, we obtained feedback and are adapting the format of our guidance notes so that they are easier to read and the key points stand out more.
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 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, we work with them to make sure they have submitted apprpropriate documents, 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 publish the success rates of our grants on our website and share our data with our funders and the sector in Wales.
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 all our programmes. We operate a two-stage application process, with our initial Expression of Interest stage focused on determining essential eligibility and fit with our programmes and funds. Only projects with a strong chance of being successful are invited to complete a full application.
We publish programme guides and application documents that are independently reviewed for clarity and consistency.
Almost all the questions we ask of applicants are necessary to help us to ascertain the heritage value, potential local economic and social benefits (including environmental impact and understanding the diversity of project teams supported by our funding), organisational capacity and financial/commercial position (where relevant) of projects. These answers help us to make funding decisions, to understand any barriers to accessing our support or additional support required to access our funding, and to ensure we are acting in concert with our strategic objectives.
See also commitment at 8 below.
As a primarily early-stage grant funder and responsible lender, we have for many years operated an explicit policy of embracing a responsible degree of risk. We seek, through providing advice and specialists programmes, such as our RePlan capacity building programme, 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, and we are committed to sticking to both decision-making and payment time tables 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 also publish lists of awards 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 terms. 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 can contribute funding towards 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 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 are in the final stages of updating our Grant Offer letter to improve clarity and transparency around our reporting expectations.
We revised our Evaluation Framework in 2024, which has added some new elements of capacity building support and some additional survey questions for our loan and grant recipients, but we have also revised our grant claiming process to lessen that burden on projects. We hope these changes will result in better evidence for us to use in making requests to our funders while minimising the additional time-burden placed on projects we support.
We are a proactive, relationship-based funder and we use our networks and research to identify funding and partnership opportunities. As well as explaining our funding priorities and requirements on our website, organisations can get in touch with us directly with any questions. Relationships with prospective organisations are developed over multiple meetings and visits. We will provide clear feedback after each stage, as well as answering any questions an organisation has throughout.
We will complete our own research (Charity Commission etc.) and due diligence so we can have informed and relevant discussions with any organisation. Our preference is always to visit organisations where they are, to better appreciate their activities whilst being respectful of their time. As a proactive funder, we do not have an application form and organisations are able to share information in the format they prefer.
We will explain clearly how we assess risk and Trustees consider each organisation based on its individual situation and circumstances. We typically support small and medium-sized organisations and we therefore understand some development areas are a work in progress. We work together with organisations to address key issues rather than this being a barrier to our support.
As well as consideration at quarterly board meetings (where the dates are shared in advance), Trustees can review proposals on an ongoing basis, in order to meet the needs of organisations i.e. where a request is time dependent/ more urgent.
We will give feedback to all unsuccessful applicants (including reasons for being unsuccessful) at all stages, and we try to provide as much helpful guidance as possible. We also share our grants data on 360 giving.
We will consider each organisation and its needs on an individual basis, tailoring our support and funding wherever possible i.e. it can be core/capital/project funding etc. and this is led by the needs of the organisation. We understand that an organisation’s circumstances might – and often do – change and we will respond with consideration, working together to achieve the best outcome.
Outside of formal reporting, which we will jointly agree with each grantee, we encourage organisations to get in touch whenever they need to and in whatever manner is most convenient. We regularly have verbal reporting i.e. a call or a visit, which enables us to build a deeper relationship with organisations. We take a collaborative approach, providing advice and guidance in addition to financial support.
We will jointly agree the reporting requirements with each individual organisation, trying to ensure they are proportionate to the grant size, scope and length. We use a combination of verbal updates i.e. a call or a visit, and written reporting, so we do not overburden organisations or create unnecessary work. We also welcome organisations sharing reports completed for other funders or their annual reports.
Since May 2023, we have had an online application system with two routes to apply; unrestricted/core and project/capital. We have minimised the time spent to complete an application for both routes (5 mins and 20 mins respectively). We review all applications every month, and either decline, or express an interest to proceed to the next stage (an assessment visit, max 45 mins). Those we visit, we can fund, if the assessment visit goes well (it pretty much always does).
Our eligibility questionnaire checks only a North East region postcode and that the applicant is a charitable organisation.
We have two online application forms:
Unrestricted / core – there are no long form written answers, it takes 5 minutes to complete.
Project / Capital – there is one long from answer of 200 words (essentially, what do you want to spend the money on and why is it important?) and that takes about 20 minutes to complete.
Assessment visits are in person, at the applicant’s premises, and are max 45 minutes, and questions are targeted around issues arising from our desk based due diligence and research.
For all organisations we visit for a grant assessment, we will likely award some funding. If we note something we are not happy with when visiting, we will more often than not (in fact always, so far) agree to fund the organisation for a shorter initial period of time (usually 12 months) which allows the issue to be considered and addressed, and then we can revisit towards the end of the grant period to discuss continuation funding. We always commit to re-visiting and re-assessing the organisation in that shorter grant period, to see how they are getting on, with interim visits (say 3 to 6 monthly) programmed if appropriate (if we are really worried), so that the organisation feels supported and that we are interested.
We review applications monthly, and aim to decline those we cannot take forward for funding within two weeks of month’s end.
We then carry out assessments through in person visits to premises of those we can fund across each quarter and make grant decisions at the end of each quarter.
When visiting for assessment, we check with the potential grantee if they have any urgency for a quicker grant decision from us, and if they do, we convene our Trustees by email reporting and responses to make an earlier decision before quarter end (usually within a week).
After grant decisions are made we aim to transfer Year 1 funding and issue a grant letter within two weeks of quarter end meeting.
We explain what we do on our website.
We publish our most recent quarterly information on; numbers of applications received, and then numbers of those applications funded.
We commit to attending spaces and events where charitable organisations can meet with us and feel seen by us; funding fairs, in person and online “meet the funder” events, cross sector online forums and regional third sector events.
We visit all those we assess for grants, and re-visit at the end of the multi-year grant period to discuss continuation grants – at these visits, we are open to any questions and give opportunity for those questions to be asked.
We make it clear to all those we visit for grant assessment that they are the experts, and they know best what to do with our grant funding.
To emphasise that point, 95% of our grant funding is offered as unrestricted now (even those who apply through the project / capital route, because often organisations think that is a better route to be funded, when project or capital funding is not what they really need / want).
We make it clear to all grantees when we visit them that they have an opportunity to:
– change use of grant at any time through the multi-year grant period,
– to set the start date of the grant (if they would like it aligned with other funding, or aligned with start of financial year, or put on hold whilst they undertake recruitment etc)
We try to be both clear and approachable in the wording we use, on our website.
In person, we listen at first, and then try to briefly describe who we are and how we work, in line with these commitments as written here. (More often than not, we dont need to, as word travels.)
We have re-designed our reporting format.
It remains a single page of A4 and we remind our grantees that is all we want returned (or alternatively they can offer a report they have already written for another funder).
On our report, we ask for a link to their last published annual accounts / report.
We ask what has changed for the organisation since that report was published; successes and challenges.
We ask whether we can help with anything, or if we can improve how we work with them as a grantee.
We ask whether they would like a chat by telephone, and arrange this if they do.
We review each report and decide whether we need any further contact, and carry this out online. For example; the grantee has lost an important contract and needs to re-organise – we will call them to understand what they are doing and how we can support.
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 have introduced 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 introduced an expression of interest phase within the application process to ensure best alignment to funding and reduce time and effort required from the applicant.
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 once per month for smaller funding applications. Once awarded we look to issue funds within 14 days. We offer two rounds of larger multi year funding throughout the year and publish timescales for each funding cycle.
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 in gathering learning.
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.
– Set up a new grantee portal to improve applicants experience.
– Update our Funding Strategy to include more information on what we fund.
– Include our data on 360Giving so applicants gain a greater insight into the types of grants we make.
– We will explain to applicants why we ask specific questions and invite conversation.
– We will establish an annual grantee survey to understand their experience with us.
-We will continue to share our insights on risks with applicants and grantees, to help support their risk identification, mitigation and management.
-We will continue to invest in strengthening our relationships to support transparent conversations related to risk.
-We will publish our data on how long our process takes.
-We will work as a team to ensure we communicate consistently and clearly regarding the grants process and deadlines.
-We will continue to provide written feedback and offer conversations.
-We will publish success rates and reasons for rejection.
-Applicants can request any type of funding under our country programmes. We start the conversation with what they seek to achieve for animals and their communities and build the appropriate grant required to support the organisation to deliver and be resilient.
– We will support other animal welfare funders to consider this approach, to ensure we all ‘pay what it takes’.
-We will introduce an annual feedback survey.
-We will communicate in writing, as well as having a conversation.
-We will share reporting templates and expectations of our relationship at the time of or before contract signature.
-We are reviewing our templates as part of our grant making system upgrade and will consider any further efficiencies we can make.
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 are working toward using AI to simplify time for applications and reduce amount of repetitive information that is needed from each application.
We have developed a micro grant model to allow more smaller, first time, groups apply and succeed their first application and build confidence for the next time they need support.
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 introduced an EOI stage to help support early stage applications to get ready for full application and offer support that’s above the norm at this stage to groups applying.
We work hard to help groups apply align their work to donors/funder strategic priorities and support them to understand the relevance and potential of this to secure more sustainable funding.
We supporting individuals through small bursaries and align them to VCSE community partners who can offer wrap and support.
We take calculated risks with our own funds and encourage donor to do the same through our microgrants.
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 are working on an Emergency Preparedness Plan with help of NET
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 grant manager to build long term relationships.
We run regular ‘Meet The Funder’ session and participate in wide networks of communities (via LAs, community networks etc) to share our opportunities.
We annually public our grants data; 360 Giving data, FREA data (Funders for Race Equalities Alliance).
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 support changes in the life cycle of a grant through building a close and ongoing relationship with grantees, understanding that changes occur as do changes in needs of our communities.
We work on a ‘Listen, Learn, Adapt and Change’ model which means we are always flexible to learn from VCSE and communities and agile in how we respond.
We always feedback on unsuccessful applications and invite groups to work with us to revise their ideas to resubmit.
We have built into our main funds a peer learning approach, bringing grantees together to build partnership and share ideas and lessons and data to build a more cohesive sector.
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 ask for and collect only data that has a use and will be used to inform donor decisions, policy makers and service provision, shaping changes through listening to our communities and their needs. Shifting the power.
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. Our two-stage application process further seeks to reduce the time burden on applicants. We endeavour to reflect on misunderstandings during the application process and seek feedback where possible 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 and in a timely manner. 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 are open and transparent about our decision-making processes from the outset. We aim to provide useful feedback to all unsuccessful applicants, and offer detailed feedback in 1:1 calls with shortlisted applicants. Our grant-giving data is publicly available via our website and 360 Giving, and we are beginning to make further information available about our grant-making, including success rates, diversity trends and organisational size. We strive to make continuous improvements in this area.
We have strengthened our commitment to flexibility by unrestricting 25% of all new grants and continue to fund a proportion of core costs through all of our existing grants. We have a strategic commitment to increase the proportion of unrestricted and core funding we are providing, in line with what we know charities need. 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 reviewed our monitoring and evaluation approach to ensure that our requirements are proportionate across the board. We provide consistent guidance across our partnerships, with flexibility at its heart. 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.
In our upcoming grant round, we will provide clear communication regarding the eligibility criteria and take a proactive approach to support charities. At the outset of the application process, we will ask key questions to assess eligibility. For those who do not meet the criteria, we will encourage them not to proceed with their applications, creating a more streamlined process for all participants.
We will also publish our scoring matrix and specify the amount of grant funding available, avoiding any ambiguous language. To enhance clarity and efficiency, we will implement a multi-step funding process, clearly outlining each stage. This will ensure that applicants only complete full applications when their chances of success are significantly higher, particularly in the initial round where demand is likely to exceed available resources.
Our funding process is designed to be multi-step to prevent the collection of unnecessary information from the outset. The expression of interest form will be concise, consisting of four to five questions focused specifically on how the proposed work aligns with our criteria and it will be tested before going live. This streamlined approach will help us efficiently identify suitable candidates while minimising the burden on applicants. We will endeavour to collect feedback on the process after conclusion.
Our funding process will take a collaborative approach to due diligence, enabling applicants to provide existing policies and resources, rather than creating bespoke responses. We clearly outline our approach to risk, including specifying which specific areas are required in order for a grant to be considered. We aim to be supportive to applicants where we have concerns about risk, such as providing them with time, resources and advice to improve their capacity rather than declining a grant.
We will publish clear and realistic timetables for all stages of our funding process, giving a reasonable window for applicants to ensure those with lesser capacity are not excluded. We will aim to make the first instalment of grant payments within one month of applications being approved by the board of trustees.
We first remove ineligible organisations and let them know they are not eligible. We write to all eligible organisations whose applications were unsuccessful giving the main reason for our decision. We will provide information on what the successful organisations demonstrated to help future applicants understand what we’re looking for. We will provide detailed feedback to all applicants who were selected for stage 2 and unsuccessful. We regularly review the feedback we give and use it to improve and develop our criteria and the information we share with applicants about our priorities and decision-making processes.
All our funding will be unrestricted, allowing charities the flexibility to use the funds as they see fit, provided it aligns with their charitable objectives. This support can be directed toward any aspect of their organisation, including overhead costs and salaries.
All grantees are assigned a dedicated point of contact within the Foundation, and we work collaboratively to establish clear funding terms and conditions. We ensure that grantees understand the reasons behind their grant award and the specific areas of their work we aim to support. Together, we determine a communication schedule that suits both parties, fostering transparency and encouraging critical reflection. To promote meaningful engagement, we provide examples of constructive feedback and encourage grantees to offer the same, creating a culture of open dialogue and continuous improvement.
We provide flexibility in reporting, offering a light-touch option or accepting reports that organisations have already prepared for other funders. For multi-year grants, we allow charities to outline their own outcomes which will be relevant to their growth journey, ensuring the goals align with their unique mission and needs. Our progress reports serve as a platform for sharing successes and challenges, enabling us to offer tailored support across relevant business functions to help the charity scale effectively. This approach ensures that reporting remains meaningful and contributes to their growth without creating unnecessary administrative burden.
We have reviewed our application form, and CRM to make it easy to apply, with lots of information for the avoidance of doubt. Having taken on feedback from two larger charities who we do not fund, we will be launching a new website in 2025 which is much clearer. We will also be making some changes to our eligibility quiz to make who we fund clearer to applicants.
We have tweaked our form to ensure we get all the relevant information at time of application. We review applications quarterly and reply in a timely manner.
We realise there is always an element of risk. To mitigate this we start off with smaller grants until we get to know a grantee.
Our CRM has the potential to run reports to tell us how long a grantee is in each stage of the application process and how long the entire process takes to allow us to be more efficient.
We provide details of our eligibility, what we don’t fund and previous grantees to help be more open and honest about what we fund. We also always respond and give as much information as possible on refusals and try helpfully refer.
If needed we can extend reporting timelines and pay grants at the most optimal time for a grantee.
Respond to ALL applications. Give useful information and free resources on our website.
If a small grant we try minimise application and reporting in order that the amount of time reporting and applying is proportional to the grant.
The Blue Threads keeps its processes and demands on grantees/potential grantees to an absolute minimum, with only a short enquiry form and a get-to-know-you call as part of the application process. We try to only arrange calls with organisations we think are likely to fit within our grants criteria so as not to waste time. We keep reporting to a minimum, inviting grantees to share evaluations/reporting that they have prepared for other funders and to a 1 year call if we think we are likely to be able to renew their grant.
We have recently updated the language on our enquiry form to highlight the issue areas that we fund within. We hope this will reduce the number of enquiries we receive from organisations that are completely out of scope.
We use a short online form to gather learning from our grants. We review and update the form regularly to ensure we are asking for the information we need and use, and not duplicating work.
We ask our grantees who else we should support to find out about organisations that might be overlooked.
We are happy to fund very small and/or new organisations, including unconstituted/unregistered groups. We nearly always make unrestricted grants, and as a result we don’t ask for any reporting or detail in terms of how grants are spent.
We are mindful that our purpose as a funder is to direct funds to organisations on the ground, and we make sure to do that in a timely way with processes that are as swift and short as possible.
We offer an open door to grantees, inviting them to get in touch if they need additional support before their grant is due for renewal, and/or if they have challenges or issues they would like to discuss.
We nearly always offer unrestricted funding, recognising that this is the most effective way we can support organisations’ work.
We are conscious of the value of partners’ time, and we ask to speak/arrange a call when it is really necessary. We communicate questions we would like to cover in a call with grantees ahead of time so they understand what we are looking for. We aim to inform potential grantees about our process and give them a time frame for when they will hear back from us.
Many of our grants are relatively small, and we are conscious of making sure our application and reporting processes are proportionate in terms of effort and scrutiny.
We provide clear information about the priorities of our project funding programmes and give examples of the kind of projects we have funded. Applicants can identify if the fund is suitable for them and we are happy to advise groups before they submit an application.
We continually review our application forms and monitoring forms. This is so that the questions asked are relevant and appropriate for assessment processes. We only ask for information needed to make funding decisions.
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 carry out robust due diligence checks to minimize risk.
We aim for an 8 week turnaround for notification to applicants. We have started to run some funds on a rolling basis and aim to get decisions to applicants as quickly as we can. We will inform them if there are any delays to decisions.
We provide information about the decision-making process and the specific priorities of each fund we distribute. We publish on our website a list of awards made.
We are flexible and will work with grantees if they need to extend or amend how their project 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 fundraising related skills and knowledge.
We do this in terms of ensuring the questions we ask, the due diligence checks we undertake and that the grant monitoring is all proportionate to the funding level.
Clear published criteria and guidance which includes eligibility, decision making criteria and decision making processes.
Criteria is reviewed and amended after every funding round to continually refine and embed learning.
We question and challenge ourselves first – being clear on what we’re asking and why – if the answer won’t make a real difference to the outcome, why ask?
For larger grants we enable people to answer the questions in any order, so they can tell their story their way.
For small grants we ask few, simple, questions.
For all grants, we provide guidance on recommended length of answers, but have no restrictive word counts.
We actively embrace and encourage risk-taking by applicants and decision panel. We are here to do things differently.
We hold separate ‘Wrap Around’ funds for any grant over £3000, to enable us to directly support grantees with their projects, to enable everyone to take risks in a supported way.
We are needs-led. We create funds and support that respond to need, and as such are able to introduce new support and funding interventions quickly, based on local and national societal and sector change.
We publish and stick to our timelines.
Decisions are usually made within 1-month of application (often shorter for smaller grants).
We reduce administration barriers; once decisions are made we get ££’s to people as quickly and simply as possible. We often provide the significant proportion of funds up front.
We always offer additional support to applicants including: publishing full and detailed guidance, running online info sessions with Q&As, providing an email address to contact with queries, and always responding quickly.
We always give feedback, usually proportional to the size of the grant. As a minimum, applicants are told the key criteria we feel they didn’t meet or were less strong on. We always provide further feedback if requested.
We are a specialist funder, we are also needs-led and as such are able to introduce new support and funding interventions quickly, based on local and national societal and sector need.
We allow applications in written, video or audio formats.
We provide support, access adjustments, and understand everyone as an individual and respond accordingly.
We use easy English in our communications
We take pride in having clear, friendly, welcoming, timely communications – always.
In providing feedback, we always aim to be clear, helpful and kind.
We communicate changes clearly and transparently.
We provide clear agreement letters to grantees, setting out our relationship and expectations / needs.
For larger grants (£3000+) we hold kick off meetings to talk through projects and ensure clarity for all partners, and agree any additional support needed / allocation of wrap-around funds.
We pay people for their time for meetings with us.
We actively reject unreasonable and overly complex reporting processes for micro/small (e.g. £500) grants.
All our funding pots have proportionate processes in relation to the £’s available or the commitment requested.
We hold evaluation meetings at the end of larger grants, and record these meetings for the reporting, to reduce the amount of writing the grantee needs to do, and to ensure we are capturing what we need to know.
We pay people for their time for meetings with us.
Funding priorities – what we fund and do not fund clearly explained on website home page.
Having found open applications increasingly challenging to give due diligence to and having decreasing acceptance rates as the trust became better known, we have now moved to a “by invitation only” application process.
A brief application form from when we accepted open applications was devised and amended in the light of grantees advice and comments. This is now seldom used. As we seek out organisations to fund ourselves, our due diligence process takes place through email correspondence and video meetings before inviting an application. This usually results in the applicant being asked to submit only a one-page summary of why funding is required and how the funds will be spent. Importantly we encourage request for unrestricted funding and are happy to cover core costs or independent evaluations of the organisation’s work.
BMT is increasingly moving from a position where all our funding decisions were evidence-based to one of a much more trust-based approach. We recognise the potential in taking a more risk-based approach, especially as higher risk interventions are less likely to be funded by mainstream funders.
Currently most decisions are made at quarterly trustee meetings. Advanced notice is given of the dates of meetings and all applicants are notified of their success or otherwise withing 48 hours of the meeting. We recognise a need to increase the frequency of our funding decision making and are taking steps to address this issue.
For many years BMT has always given detailed reasons as to why applications have been unsuccessful. With an “invitation only” approach this is now hardly ever needed as success rates for applications are running at 100%. We find ourselves in a quandary as to publishing success rates (though all our grants are published at 360 Giving). If we were to state on our website that the chance of an invited application being funded was 100% (or approaching 100%) this is likely to cause problems in the rare case of an invited application being unsuccessful.
Unrestricted funding is the norm. Very occasionally restrictions are added, though these are usually where a charity works in several broad areas and we wish funding to address one of those areas specifically. E.g. we have funded Oxfam with the stipulation that funds must be spent to address climate change. We have always been accommodating when grantees have let us know of changes to our initial funding agreement. However, given that we mainly issue unrestricted funding this situation rarely occurs.
Contact with potential applicants, applicants and grant holders has always been personal, respectful and prompt.
Reporting requirements are made clear from the outset. This usually entails an annual report not exceeding one A4 page along with access to the grantee’s formal published annual report.
We will be clear on time commitments and remunerate people’s time spent supporting our learning and communications that is outside of the essential asks or application processes/grant management.
Keep guidance accessible, clear and integrated so that there isn’t multiple places to find key information
Always be clear we have availability, even for minor queries, for phone calls with the internal team or local Development Coordinators, being mindful that it may be an more efficient way for people to communicate with us.
We only ask for what we need and know that we will use, whether in monitoring or proposal information, and aim to never duplicate asks. Unless it is essential for learning, due diligence or decision making we will not ask it. We are happy to receive materials that have already been produced, rather than asking people to fit them into our templates.
We use a two stage application process for new grants, making the first expression of interest clear and connected to all guidance and criteria to enable clear and relevant shifting.
Be proportionate with risk, understanding that with risk can come the most valuable learning and impact particularly where other funders may not be willing or able to fund. Consider the risks of not funding something, as well as risks associated with funding it.
Through a relationship-based approach know that risk will be minimised and issues supportively resolved together. Always be on hand to support projects that identify challenges, taking as much or as little time is needed to do this well.
Be confident that the essential due diligence checks are robust enough to ensure safety and security for all involved but accept that naturally things will not go to plan and this is all part of our collective learning journey.
Being timely with decisions, payments and following up on actions, particularly when issues arise.
Taking responsibility for the critical role we play and taking seriously the responsibility we have as administrators to funding that may be key to people’s wellbeing or employment for example, as well as critical to our aims and mission.
Not shying away from ‘difficult’ conversations that need open, honest and clear communication from pre-application conversations, to during grant management.
Being open about the learning journey we are on and that we are not experts and will make mistakes, and open to suggestions and ideas throughout the journey.
Being open about the situation with our own funding and our capacity, the potential future scenarios, pressures and future we might be in to support understanding.
Offering flexibility on plans, end dates and spending plans – because we know things change and space for new ideas and opportunities is important.
Enabling flexibility supporting building authentic relationships and means we can work and learn together on the process.
Being process focused over results focused enables flexibility.
We can contribute to operational costs and contingency budgets, as well as discussing uplifts if needed during the grant.
Through an early and funded incubator process, proposed plans have had time to be worked up and supported so expectations and clarity on the purpose and relationships are clear.
We work with local Development Coordinators who support clear and purposeful communications that enable purposeful support.
We will have regular and consistent opportunities for projects to come together to communicate with us and between themselves.
Commit to proportionately when it comes to applications and expressions, due diligence requirements and light-touch reporting – only asking for what we need and will use and being mindful of the impact of the ask on the grant holder or applicant.
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 Manager before applying.
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 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 additional support when grantees have experienced challenging situations including financial difficulties, accepting the associated level of risk.
We are transparent about the time it takes us to make funding decisions and publish our grant-making timetable with specific dates on our website. We made improvements to our processes during our recent strategic review to speed this up. We are able to make decisions on additional support grants for grantees very quickly.
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. We offer feedback to all applicants rejected at the second stage of our assessment process. This year we will start to publish our success rates and the most common reasons for rejection on our website.
Our new strategy focuses on awarding unrestricted funding. 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 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 approach and reporting requirements, 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 seek to ensure that our approach to reporting 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 are able to accept reports submitted to other Funders to minimise duplication of effort. We also seek to run additional support grants alongside existing funding to avoid any duplication of reporting.
We will publish a video version of our how to apply process on our website. We will create a Word document of our application form that applicants can review before starting an application. We will explore having this translated into languages spoken widely in Cambridgeshire. We will explore the potential of including an EOI in our application process for new funds balancing the speed of distributing funds. We will review all existing processes in line with our new Salesforce to enhance applicant experience.
We will consistently review our process to only ask relevant questions. We will also continue our yearly applicant satisfaction survey and will aim to publish the results with a summary of what we will change to address common themes. We will co-create with our VCSE sector and enhance partnerships to identify barriers to applying/receiving funding.
We will continue to review our application process allowing groups to self-certify where appropriate. We are committed to increasing the number and value of multi-year grants and unrestricted funding and will continue to advocate for this with donors.
We will continue to publish our timescales and encourage donors to help us stick to these. We will continue to build close relationships with donors. We will ensure new programmes are as efficient as possible.
We will review our success rates/how many grants we expect to make and publish information for our funds to improve transparency. We will continue to publish grants data on 360 Giving every six months and will report EDI using the 360 Giving DEI Data Standard.
We will commit to increasing the number and value of multi-year grants and unrestricted funding. We will update our underspend level that should be returned at project end to give more flexibility.
We will develop our relationships and communication with groups through our volunteer visitor programme and the members of the Grants Team will visit at least five groups per year. We will enhance our pre-application contact based on what groups want – likely to be a mix of group funding sessions and 121 funding chats. We will explore development of a skills bank to offer upskilling and pro bono advice to groups.
We will continue to review the level of reporting required especially across new programmes. We will start hosting monitoring webinars to support grantees to best report their impact, including examples of how we use the information they give us. We will co-design a method for reporting impact of core cost grants.
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 an Expression of Interest 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. The charity is then invited to send the application through for a proof read before finally submitting.
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 two 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 needs.
In our successful award letter, the list of reporting requirements are stated: A 1-2 page report towards the end of the grant, successful aspects of the year, number of participants, and what could have worked better. We are available to advise on the type of reporting the charity would like to submit.
We will continue to have an eligibility quiz but in response to rising application numbers, in 2025 we will introduce new funding priorities, which will be published on our website and on our application forms. We will be upfront with potential applicants about how much funding is available and what we expect success rates to be.
We participate in pre-application outreach activities and we are always open to applicants asking questions before applying to us.
In 2025 we will introduce a two-stage application form – partly in response to an increase in demand for our funding – but also to reduce the number of unfundable applications the team is assessing. There will be a short Expression of Interest, followed by a more detailed second-stage application form for those applicants that are more likely to be successful.
We classify the risk profile of all our grants. We recognise that the risk appetite within our Open Grants Programme is fairly cautious but through our new funding priorities, we aim to have a more balanced approach towards risk.
Each of our Equity Programmes funds a mix of organisations which enables us to take a more healthy approach to risk in pursuit of reward.
However, we are committed to continue talking to our board about balancing risk and reward. A review of risks and risk appetite with a commissioned partner is in the 2025 Business Plan.
We also regularly review “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 are upfront about our decision-making timeframes for our Open Grants Programme (Small and Large). But we accept that the turnaround time on our Small Grants Programme has slipped in 2024 due to increased application numbers. We are committed to returning to a 12-week turnaround time in 2025 with streamlined assessment processes, whilst staying open to applications.
In 2024 we introduced feedback for all unsuccessful applicants and are committed to continue this.
We publish our data on 360 Giving and complete the Funders for Race Equality Alliance’s Racial Justice Audit.
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 of use due to rising project costs, and extending deadlines for drawdown of funds.
Our Equity Programmes provide multi-year unrestricted funding, which is designed to strengthen the capacity and build the strategic autonomy of the organisations that we fund.
For our Equity Programmes, we agree jointly with our grantees the expectation around our relationship and reporting requirements from the outset and continue to check in and agree changes in this as the relationship progresses.
After pausing our post-grant monitoring during the pandemic, in 2024 we ran a pilot to test whether grantees would welcome the option to participate in an online or in-person conversation as opposed to providing us with a written report. Initial feedback from grantees has been positive and we feel that we are also getting the insights we need to inform our future grantmaking. In 2025 we will continue to test and refine this approach, with a plan to roll it out further across the Open Grants Programme.
Reporting on our Equity Programmes is quarterly and is also conversation-based. They are expected to engage with Learning Partners but this work is jointly scoped.
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.
See “application and due diligence” section of this page – https://www.collectivefutures.org/approach/guiding-principles – especially the following:
Our application processes are light touch, and we use existing materials from partners wherever possible. The Collective Futures team do the writing and preparation for decision making.
Over time – we will have specific ‘funds’ – for each ‘fund’ that we then have, we will design it to reduce burden on those we seek to fund (and engage external challenge & input on the design of the process end-to-end) – we have yet to design these in detail, but our first one will be focused on convening – and we’re planning on using initial research and then supplementing with only select questions that we can’t otherwise figure out
This speaks to our “Caring” principle, particularly: We have the flexibility to use our resources to absorb risk for others.
This speaks to our “Responsive” principle: We recognise contexts evolve and we are adaptable and supportive when they do. We strive to be agile and decisive, especially in moments of uncertainty.
This speaks to the “Grantmaking decisions” section of the page, specifically:
We can make grant decisions on a rolling basis. We aim to make grantmaking decisions quickly and transparently, valuing and preserving the organisation’s time.
We give constructive, actionable feedback to those we don’t fund (and those we do).
This speaks to our “Partnership” section of the page, specifically:
We normally provide unrestricted funding, trusting partners to respond to the world around them as it evolves.
We don’t fund with tapered grants, which force partners into increased financial stress as their work progresses.
If a partner’s circumstances change, we respond quickly, identifying where we can help and offering to bear additional risk ourselves, if appropriate.
We can provide ‘funding plus’, to support organisational and leadership development and to allow us to respond flexibly to partners’ needs.
Speaks to the intent of our “Collaborative” principle
“Evaluation and learning” section of the page:
We seek feedback to ensure that we are embodying our guiding principles. We expect to evolve our behaviours and practices when we see opportunities for improvement.
We are partner-led in how we learn. We prioritise learning over measurement alone and are flexible in supporting a learning approach that is led by our partners and advances their work.
Continue to incorporate key applicant feedback, where feasible, into how we make and manage investments. Publish (and update as relevant) our strategy and ensure that our eligibility criteria and the guidance for each of our open funding programmes are available on our website.
Ensure each funding programme will be accompanied by clearly (and in advance) advertised 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.
Review our approach to a two-stage application process for open funding calls to reduce the burden on applicants. Continue to only require successful organisations submit detailed MEL plans and budgets.
We have reduced the requirements for completing funding applications, and we will continue to work on these to be user friendly for applicants.
We have an established compliance and risk management framework in place to support our funded partners. We take a risk focused approach, allowing us to take a more progressive, relational style to managing risk.
We are committed to working alongside our partners and supporting them in managing risk, rather than taking a more traditional/ transactional approach to grant management where mitigations are imposed whilst supporting our obligations to our supporters and partners.
We are open to continuously reviewing our approach to grant management in the context of risk, with an open view to exploring new ways to manage risk in more collaborative and effective ways. We recognise that approaches to risk aren’t uniform and will take that into account to ensure equity of opportunity.
We will continue to make information available on timelines for all open funding programmes, including application windows, assessment windows and the decision-making.
We will provide enough contingency within our scheduling to absorb challenges, and thus, reduce the need to change timelines.
Having introduced delegated decision making for most of our funding in 2023 (reducing the time taken to make a grant) we will look to further streamline our processes.
We will continue to publish call-specific information such as common reasons why applications were not funded and trends across applications. We will continue to review 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 have adopted the DEI data standard, which will help us have a better understanding of the diversity, equity and inclusiveness of our funding portfolio.
Our default funding offer is now to provide flexible core funding (which we define as: It has an agreed purpose, an agreed time period, an agreed specific geographic area if applicable, and beyond this the funded partner proposes how the funds are spent). We will continue with this approach, and also with our flexible grant management, whereby funded partners are able to amend budget and MEL plans to reflect changing contexts.
We will continue to establish expectations of the relationship with funded partners at the start of funding.
We will continue to pay first instalments upfront at the beginning of our relationship.
We will review our Conditions of Funding to ensure that it is positive and purposeful.
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 have adopted a simpler format for reporting for funded partners receiving funding in 2024 onwards. These reports focus on clearly communicating what data we need and why/how we use it. Reporting requirements will continue to differ where there are specific co-funder requirements. We will continue to review feedback that we receive about this new approach and address this accordingly.
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.
– Help with your application document – including templates for policies
– Two stage process – EOI, with only the best matched requests being invited to apply
– Published Eligibility document
– Funding surgeries and Q&A sessions
– One application – many Funds
– Notify rejected grant seekers as soon as possible
– Rapid turnaround small grants
– Publish fixed dates for notification of outcome
– 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 70%+ success rate for full applications to Main Grants Rounds
– Shortened EOI form
– Removed questions from our application form about future funding and sustainability
– Engage with VCFS groups to review application forms
– Add in relevant questions to enable grant seekers to indicate if they are user lead.
– Removed questions from our application form about future funding and sustainability
– Put forward medium and high risk applications if the impact of the project justifies it
– Use a score sheet to record risk equitably
– Fund CIC grant seekers where delivering positive impact
– Commit to awarding grants to organisations which are new to CFS – KPI 20% of organisations funded are new to CFS
– Remove itemised budget from the information shared with Fund-holders
– Develop a Small grants programme with light touch assessment
– Trying to fund where we previously would have hesitated, for example, groups with low reserves, and supporting new organisations via an umbrella organisation.
– Adjusting Due Diligence criteria to reflect the challenging financial climate, and organisations having lower reserves. Considering such groups when there is a solid strategy alongside.
– In the current financial climate, continue to develop skills to ensure we fully understand financial backgrounds.
– Provide Funder Plus support to groups to improve their process and governance, reducing future risk.
– 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.
– Ask fund-holders 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
– Learning and review of unintended consequences eg. move to themed round, changes to eligibility
– Develop a Small grant programme with a fast turnaround – eg 30 days
– Reviewing the Unfunded list for potential funding gaps in the county.
– Implement a process to manage rolling programmes with low application rates
– Developed a Crisis grants programme to respond to the funding emergency facing VCS
– Developed an emergency programme in response to Southport/Riots for safety grants
– Delivered events for the sectors’ CEO and Trustees events, in response to the cost of living crisi and impact on organisations sustainability
– Publish success rates
– Publish all awards on 360 giving: This is now done within 5 working days of the end of each quarter
– Improved our coding of 360 Giving data, including data on grants to individuals
– Updates to grant seekers on where they are in the process
– Provide feedback to those not invited to apply
– Be transparent if we do not have the Funds to support certain projects.
– Annual anonymous survey to gather feedback from grant-seekers
– Communicated the statistics of success at EOI shortlisting
– Work from the assumption that we will say yes to change requests if at all possible
– Ad hoc response to change requests within week
– We will cover core costs in project apps
– We will award core costs grants
– We allow flexibility for timings of grants, and occasionally grant use, wherever possible
– Adaptability during the review of application
– Responding to feedback from grant-seekers to improve processes
– Further adaptability during review, and end of grants, such as interviews and visits
– Regular email updates
– Clear communication about process and expectations
– Provide outreach
– Feedback opportunities on forms
– Anonymous surveys to gather feedback on our processes.
– Direct conversations with well known grant holders to seek feedback
– Assessment interviews – talk rather than relying on form alone
– More support during the application process – how-to videos
– Using appropriate, inclusive and caring language
– Introduce verbal application process (tested with DAiSY)
– Provide annual programme of Q&A sessions
– Light touch monitoring forms
– Reporting requirements are shared with grant holders at award and are accessible to them immediately, with guidance available on the website
– 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 and information sessions 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 encourage our donors to collaborate on funds to avoid high levels of demand for funds. We will solicit applications, where appropriate, and only approach those organisations who are most relevant to the work we are trying to support.
– 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 actively encourage acceptance of risk with the donors and funders we work with give, and encourage flexibility as much as possible. We will also actively work to influence and inform best practice for funding and acceptance of risk, where possible, with other external funders.
– 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.
– We will use technology, including but not limited to AI to ensure we work as efficiently as possible.
– 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 £20,000.
– 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 £20,000. 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.
– Wherever possible, as part of our learning approach, we will co-design a theory of change with young people and relevant stakeholders. This will ensure that the foundation of a learning approach is embedded from the outset of the fund’s development. This will allow us to identify an appropriate learning partner in time to brief partners on our approach prior to them signing up for a grant.
– 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.
All information about grant criteria is published on our website.
We encourage people to meet with our Community Outreach Officer if they are thinking of applying and require further guidance. 121 support sessions are available.
You can come to our community drop in sessions to hear about our funding and ask questions.
We intend to start publishing success rates and how many grants we expect to make.
We plan to run open access events with recorded videos for specific funds that could be more complex to understand.
We plan to reintroduce two stage application through open access EOI.
We have simplified our application process, only asking relevant questions and making the application form easier to complete.
We make the application and reporting forms proportionate to the size of grant available.
We plan to introduce a new CRM system that will mean that repeat applicants only have to enter their core organisation information once.
Due diligence screening is undertaken once every 3 years for current funded partners to reduce repetitive questions.
We are trying to explain how we judge risk in assessing applications much more clearly and openly.
We have stopped asking questions about how organisations will sustain the work when our funding ends.
We do not expect small and new organisations to be financially stable and accept that risk.
We are moving towards giving more unrestricted, multi-year grants.
We give applicants the opportunity to explain how they are managing and mitigating any risks we have identified in our assessment process.
If we have not made a grant because of risk, we explain why and what the organisation can do to give us more assurance if they apply again.
We understand that any grant we give is not just about the money. It is a vote of confidence from us, which can have a positive effect on how other funders perceive an organisation’s risk profile.
We are actively funding organisations facing financial risk and low reserves where they are strategically important in their communities.
We aim to publish response, decision and payment timetables.
We give good notice of when programmes are opening and closing so that you have time to plan when you make your applications.
We are careful to achieve shorter decision-making timetables by streamlining our own processes and not by giving unrealistic deadlines to charities to, for example, submit second stage applications/ respond to our queries.
We make decisions on emergency grants in a matter of days and very small grants to our Community Fund within 2 weeks.
We are increasing our capacity to give open feedback to unsuccessful applicants. We write to all organisations whose applications were unsuccessful giving the main reason for our decision. Applicants are welcome to phone us for further clarification on why their application was unsuccessful.
We regularly review the feedback we give and use it to improve and develop our criteria and the information we share with applicants about our priorities and decision-making processes.
We are making good progress in building a diverse group of people on our Grants Committee, who have expertise from across Cornwall’s voluntary sector. We are seeking to include more people with lived experience on this committee, such as young care leavers.
Our grant criteria highlights which marginalised groups are encouraged to apply, and these groups are prioritised at panel.
We will conduct an annual customer satisfaction survey.
We will share back with organisations what we have heard and what we are doing.
We publish our grants online and on 360Giving.
We have committed to carrying out more detailed analysis on the diversity and equity of our grant distribution and to publishing this.
We aim to increase our amount of grants that are offered as unrestricted and multi-year.
We give funding for other donors which limits our flexibility. But, by building relationships and explaining the benefits, we aim to encourage some to give more unrestricted and multi-year grants.
Because we have confidence in our application processes, we have confidence that we can trust the organisations we decide to fund.
We make ourselves readily available to grantees to discuss unexpected challenges/changing needs and will be flexible in helping the grantee meet these.
We don’t expect grantees to be in regular contact but encourage them to call us if there are concerns or issues about the work or our grant that they want to discuss.
We arrange visits to grantees where we can, in order to build understanding of their funding needs and wider impact, and build trusting open relationships with our funded cohort.
We think carefully about what information we need for compliance purposes and what information we need for learning about progress and outcomes. We keep our compliance forms very simple and only ask learning questions about things we know we need and will use.
As we move towards unrestricted grant funding, we are funding the whole organisation, we are interested in its overall performance. We are working towards the point where they produce no data for us, just what they give to their Board.
We have changed how we think about impact and are comfortable with seeing that the organisation is achieving what it wants to overall, rather than trying to ascertain the precise impact of our money.
The organisations we fund choose their own outcomes.
We have more conversations/interaction with organisations receiving large and longer-term grants but keep our formal reporting as light as possible for everyone.
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.
Make it easier to telephone us to ask any questions either about a specific programme or general
funding question.
Increase our offer of individual chats to organisations before applying.
Continue to move forward on our commitment to offering video applications as an alternative.
We will continue to conduct applicant and grant holder surveys. We will publish the findings,
highlighting what changes we will make to our processes.
We will continue to ensure the information asked for in application forms is proportionate to the
size of the grant.
Provide further clarity on provision of alternative formats/additional support for people who need
assistance in completing the form.
Tell you why we ask each question and how the information is used.
Never ask you for duplicate information. If additional information is necessary (e.g. management
accounts) we will explain why it is necessary and how we use it.
When delivering funds on behalf of others, we will discuss good practice in relation to the content
of the 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 micro grants (grants £3k
and under).
For micro grants, we will ensure applicants are aware of our alternative payment policy 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 agreed timelines that are in the best interests of prospective applicants.
We will aim to give a decision within four weeks for applicants funded through our micro grants
programme, such as BOOST.
We will publish the assessment criteria used for our funding programmes providing information
on the decision-making process.
We will continue to provide tailored, individual written and/or verbal feedback on your application
for most of our funding programmes.
We will continue to publish our grant information on 360 Giving.
We will publish an analysis of grant making on annual basis. This will include analysis into the
diversity of applicants and distribution of funds.
We will use the data we collate to look at how we continue to reduce barriers to groups and
organisations who have experienced inequity in applying.
We will publish the findings from our applicant and grant holder survey highlighting what changes
we will make to our processes.
In 24/25 all Henry Duncan organisational grants will be offered as 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.
When delivering funds with or on behalf of others, we will discuss the potential scope of offering
unrestricted or increased flexibility in funding.
We will aim to offer unrestricted grants in the majority of funding programmes by 2026.
Aim to build relationships based on respect and trust.
We will always be clear in our communication. This will include what grant holders can expect from
us. For example outlining reporting requirements in grant offer letter.
When we ask to meet you, we will tell you when arranging the meeting why we are meeting with you
and what to expect from us.
We will continue to make it easier for you to ask questions and seek support from us by telephone,
email or in person.
Continue to offer opportunities that bring grant holders together who share similar interests,
to help create connections and supportive learning.
We understand challenges can occur and will always work openly with applicants and grant holders
on how to respond.
We will continue to regularly ask applicants about their needs and offer support they would
find helpful.
Whenever 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.
Current:
We have a two stage process so partners don’t waste time on a full proposal straight away.
We have regular meetings with partners to clarify priorities and discuss funding opportunities
Working towards:
Review all unsuccessful funding applications to assess where we could make the process and guidelines clearer.
Translate all guidelines into Spanish.
Ensure all funding documents are checked for clarity in different cultural contexts.
All template docs available in a Sharepoint/Teams folder for partners.
Clarity on what we do and do not fund included in partnership agreements.
Current:
We use a two stage application process.
We revise our application forms as a result of feedback from partners & check clarity regularly.
We use trips to projects to collate our own information.
We have an annual M&E process to collate data and revise these questions each year based on partner feedback. We only request this for 5 years post-project.
Working towards:
Translate all application docs into Spanish.
Get external validation of clarity and compare with other organisations’ forms.
Current:
We don’t require detailed activity plans – we trust our partners to make their own operational decisions.
Working towards:
Include more clarity on how we assess risk in funding guidelines, partnership agreement or other funding documents.
Current:
We have clear application and feedback timelines that we ensure we meet.
We consult with partners as to the most helpful timings to receive funding.
We respond to partner requests for urgent information, such as a letter of support to help secure additional funding from other donors.
Current:
We provide feedback to our partners as to why applications are unsuccessful at each stage of the application process.
Working towards:
Gather data on success rates of applications.
Gather data on correlations/patterns with applications that fail to meet requirements, review gaps in partner knowledge or their need for our support to learn.
Current:
We are a specialist funder so our grants are restricted but the funding is flexible as we allow for movement of funds within the overall grant amount.
We fund up to 20% in indirect costs for any NGO partners and 10% for other partners.
We are flexible and open to funding requests from our partners that fall outside of the normal application process in special circumstances.
We are flexible in the way partners reallocate underspend if under USD 5,000 or GBP 4,000 and open to discussion if above this.
Current:
We jointly agree the expectations with our partners at the outset of each grant.
We have regular meetings with our partners to discuss progress and any feedback.
We organise an annual partners forum – in both English & Spanish – to enable knowledge sharing, exchange & input into the Foundation’s objectives.
Working towards:
Set up a partnership agreement with each partner with clear expectations for the partnership. Individual grant agreements sit underneath this.
Conduct an anonymous annual review with all partners to discuss progress against the IVAR commitments. Do baseline survey before next partners forum in June 2025.
Current:
We require minimal reporting and jointly agree reporting timelines.
Making ourselves available to have conversations about all our grant programmes so groups have as much information as possible about their likelihood of success.
We continue to amend our application processes. In 2025, for some grant renewals, we will be asking for minimum info on a form and using monitoring and personal conversations to assess.
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? This is particularly an issue for CICs, so we continue to question how we can adapt our processes to take account of different organisational structures.
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 – for example CICs.
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.
Give organisations good warning if grants are not going to be renewed, and explain why.
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. Provide information on percentage of applicant groups funded.
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. We always lean towards a change of use for our grants where possible, and when the organisation is making a good case for this.
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.
Continue to prioritise core funding where possible, and explore how we can do this more with our resident led grant giving panels.
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.
Giving organisations good warning about the end of their grant, when it is not going to be renewed in particular, as well as timings of future funds.
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 run two core application processes both re-designed in 2024 with the aim of reducing the burden on applicants and avoid hugely over-subscribed funds as far as possible:
1. A single application form for all small grants (up to £5000) after which we match all applicants that pass due diligence and basic eligibility checks with the most relevant available fund
2. An expression of interest stage for all funds offering larger grants. This allows us to balance openness to new organisations with only inviting full applications from the organisations most likely to go on to receive a grant
We have pivoted away from bespoke forms, documents and processes for each fund because this was leading to the same organisations submitting multiple applications in a year, and each fund being often 5-6x over-subscribed.
We have stripped our core small grants application form back to common questions that allow us to understand applicants’ work in their own words: who they are, the work they do, how they know it is needed, and how they learn about and improve its impact. We only ask more bespoke questions where required to administer a particular fund, and then only of applicants clearly eligible for that fund. Bespoke fund-specific questions are addressed through conversations that help build trust and shared understanding as opposed to further paper-based exercises, wherever possible.
We have more work to do on our application processes for the few programmes sitting outside our core processes, particularly those offering larger capital grants.
As an organisation we are committed carrying our share of risk. We have more work to do with the multiple and diverse donors behind our funds on the implications of doing so for stripped back application, assessment, decision-making and monitoring processes. We have been reviewing our approach to due diligence on an ongoing basis and aim to balance proportionality with the small grants we typically make, with ensuring funding is compliant with charity law and checking work is safe and unlikely cause harm to participants / communities. Where possible we make required changes advisories or conditions of grants awarded rather than reasons for rejection. Ongoing review of our internal processes and risk appetite of trustees has hampered our ability to communicate our position on this clearly and consistently, so that remains an objective for the upcoming year.
We aim for a 10 week turnaround between receipt of a small grant application and notification of the outcome. We know we could reduce this further with planned IT upgrades and more consistent decision-making processes across funds. We aim to have well established relationships with a network of organisations across the county to enable us to disburse funds urgently when needed, avoiding the need for a full/open/competitive processes where there is no inherent value in this.
At the least, we provide reasons for rejection on every small grant application, and every full application for large grants that don’t go on to be funded. We offer monthly, online Q and A sessions for potential applicants and 1-2-1 calls if their questions can’t be answered through these formats. We will explore (subject to staff capacity and IT upgrades) more regular / complete publication of information about applicants and grants awarded – alongside available fund balances – on our website.
Our small grants offer unrestricted (for charities) or core cost (for CICs / other non-profit structures) grants by default, unless the donor explicitly restricts this. We work closely with donors to help them understand the value of flexible as opposed to project / tightly restricted funding.
We continue to take a range of steps to encourage frank communication, and supportive challenge. We have integrated a conversation-based second assessment stage in our small grants application process which has allowed us to build trust with applicants and explain our processes as well as learn far more effectively about their work. We have a range of communication methods on our website including a public-facing phone number answered during opening hours. Team members prioritise being approachable to applicants. We need to rebuild our mechanisms for receiving regular written feedback.
Where it is in our gift to do so, we aim for reporting to be an opportunity for mutually beneficial reflection and focused on learning rather than accountability. Our focus in reporting is on understanding how our grantmaking enables an organisation to progress its mission, and encouraging organisations to reflect on successes and challenges, as well as thinking about next steps. We tell grantholders in advance what reporting will be required and when, and we ensure this is relevant and proportionate.
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 run regular webinars ahead of funding calls to provide extra clarity on the questions we re asking and the information we require.
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. Where possible our funding is flexible and can be adapted the changing circumstances.
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.
Where we require reporting, this is done on a milestone basis, 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. Where we are funding programmes with delivery organisations we are embedded into the delivery team to achieve real time updates and therefore do not request reporting.
Guidelines for our grant schemes are available on our website and clearly state eligibility requirements, priorities and timelines. We provide grants workshops to help applicants understand application processes and are available to respond to enquiries by telephone and email. We aim to adhere to published timeframes but will contact groups and inform them of any changes.
Our application forms are tailored to each grant scheme. We take into consideration the size of grant to ensure the questions, and information required, are relevant and proportional.
We collect anonymous feedback on our website and receive feedback from grantees through End of Grant reports. Feedback is reviewed on an ongoing basis to improve our application processes.
We are flexible with the level of detail we require from applicants/grantees in their supporting documents. 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 support groups to take risks and innovate where relevant, recognising that projects may not always meet agreed objectives, and acknowledge the value of learning.
Our grant programmes are open for a minimum of four weeks to give applicants adequate time to apply. Our usual turnaround time for applications is 10-12 weeks and ensure we have sufficient time to support applications by asking clarification questions and gaining additional information where relevant.
We provide information on success rates in our notification letters and grant workshops. Typically, our grant programmes have a 30-40% success rate. We plan to publish success rates for each fund within the corresponding fund guidelines.
All grant awards are published on our website and in our annual accounts. We plan to publish grant data on 360 giving in 2025.
We actively encourage applications to include full cost recovery and contribution to overheads within their project budgets. We are flexible with project extensions and re-adjustments made to budgets, activities and timescales. Our grant programmes provide core funding where possible. Our grant programmes offer both single year and multi-year funding to provide continual opportunities for groups to access funds throughout the year, alongside stability for those in receipt of longer-term grants.
EECF aims to be a trusted funder and establish strong and transparent relationships with voluntary and community groups. Our website provides information on how we can support groups, including FAQs and step-by-step guide to our grants process.
We are reviewing our website with the aim of providing further information on how we support grantees. Our Conditions of Grant provide clear expectations for grantees and detail our commitment to them e.g. a dedicated point of contact. We check-in with grantees during their grant to identify any support requirements.
Our website, Conditions of grant and offer letters are reviewed regularly to ensure our commitment to grantees is clearly communicated.
We apply reporting requirements proportional to size of grant and provide guidelines for grantees to complete reporting. We use an online system on which grantees can easily enter data and attach supporting documents. We offer an offline template if preferred. Where interim reports are required, we are flexible with format.
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.
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 how we assess progress on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. Make our feedback more useful.
Be clearer about how we make decisions. Make sure our web portal is beneficial for applicants.
We run a rolling programme for most grants, aiming for approval within two months of application, where possible. We offer bookable 30-minute phone consultations to discuss eligibility, avoiding wasted time on ineligible applications. In 2023-24, we held 203 pre-application calls—a fourfold increase from the previous year.
Our application form has been simplified to three key questions, avoiding unnecessary details. For new fundholders, we ensure additional questions are relevant. Core funding now represents over 50% of our grants, with a commitment to increase this by 5% over the next two years.
We have reduced our grant-making policy to four pages in plain English to encourage applications from marginalised groups. A flexible approach to CICs and social enterprises allows us to support potentially riskier applicantions with strong social value. We are reviewing how we measure risk to better indicate changes in our risk appetite.
For rolling programmes, we aim to make decisions within two months and keep applicants informed. For programmes with deadlines, we provide clear timetables. Through our ‘Community Listening Projects’ and convening opportunities, we promptly respond to sector issues.
We publish all our grant-making data on 360 Giving and collect insights on successful and unsuccessful applications. We aim to share this data and other insights on our website. Our new CRM system will help us expand website information. We also provide a simple mechanism for anonymous feedback at the end of the application and grant process.
We are committed to increasing core and multi-year funding. In 2019, core funding was 26%, and in 2023, we reached our target of 50%, aiming for a further 5% increase over two years. We are collaborating with our180 fundholders to develop our multi-year offer. In 2023/24, 14% of our grants were multi-year, and we are committed to doubling this for small grassroots groups.
We engage with grant partners and the charitable sector through our ‘Community Listening Projects,’ including surveys, 1-2-1 interviews, and focus groups, to improve grant-making and meet partner needs. Independent reports with recommendations enhance our work, building trust and fostering partnerships as a place-based funder. Our annual Charity Symposium, held in 2023 and 2024, celebrates and highlights Essex’s voluntary sector, uniting stakeholders.
We review grant reporting based on anonymous feedback and ‘Community Listening Projects,’ using a short process (4 main questions) for most funds. We assist smaller groups, including phone-based reporting for those unfamiliar with online forms. We also plan to accept organisations’ annual reports for core cost grants, reducing the need for specific reports.
We have four Committee meetings per year. We provide an easy access and easy application process which is supported with a team’s call from a member of our team. From Grant Committee meeting and decision we would normally look to get all grant agreements drawn up and grants paid within five weeks.
We constantly reassess our application forms ensuring that they are clear and succinct and we share information with similar organisations to ensure we are remaining relevant and accessible.
We are working with grass roots charities with a small income, we do our due diligence and look at their financials, but we accept that these charities operate on a month to month basis. We offer any support or mentoring we can and if the amount they are looking for is quite large we would split the payments and have a catch up to assess where they are with the project before releasing more funding.
We do not publish our timetables at this time. However, when I speak to charities I do let them know when the next grant committee meeting will be and when the cut off date for application will be.
We are very transparent and we provide detailed feedback following grant committee meetings. We quite often will then work with the charity to either put in another grant application that could be successful or we refer them to another funder we think they will be successful with. We also have numerous surveys for both successful and not charities so that we are receiving continuous feedback on how we work.
We understand that needs change and we will always make ourselves available to discuss any changes within the project. We have previously allowed a charity to divert funding for an urgent requirement.
We create relationships with all charities that we come into contact with and constantly seek out ways to improve and collaborate.
At this time we allow charities to report in numerous ways and we do not ask for any specific reports. We are however in the process of putting a more formal impact report together to make reporting a little more standard and a little easier for charities.
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 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.
5. 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.
6. We encourage organisations to draw from applications they have previously submitted to other funders.
7. 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.
8. Once the application deadline has passed, organisations are informed within 2 weeks if they have made it to Stage 2.
9. We offer meaningful feedback to all applicants, even those that do not progress beyond Stage 1.
10. We offer in depth feedback calls to organisations that have applied to us for funding 3+ times but never got beyond Stage 1 to help them strengthen future applications.
1. We have designed the application process to make it 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 clear information on the information we would like to see in the application document.
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 do not expect applicants to be perfect. We look for strength of leadership, level of transformation of a funding ask, and potential. We are happy to take risks.
4. We hold funding panels exclusively for micro organisations (organisations with an income under £100,000), and we emphasise that we are not risk averse.
5. If we do not take an application forward at Stage 2 due to the level of risk, the organisation will have a feedback call with their Strategic Applicant Consultant to discuss how they may mitigate this risk. We will also offer, where relevant, pro bono support to help them overcome this risk (where possible) to strengthen them for future applications.
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 3-4 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 3.5 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. 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 portfolio organisations, and on 360Giving after each funding round.
4. We collect and analyse anonymous data from a Diversity, Equity and Inclusion survey completed by applicants and portfolio organisations 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 2-5 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 portfolio. We want to discuss their successes and challenges throughout the grant term, and we are committed to supporting our portfolio 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 portfolio organisations through an online induction session. We want the portfolio 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 portfolio organisations 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 want them do not only minimal 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 our portfolio organisations 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. We review each target set for the past year, and the 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 portfolio organisation’s (i.e. 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.
Update – we have recently undertaken a programme survey review with our users and are using the information gathered to improve processes where we can. So far this includes adding a PDF of fund guidelines to the website and further improving the information in our FAQ’s section. We continue to review this on a regular basis and also plan to introduce online drop-in sessions to give applicants additional means of discussing their ideas and asking question prior to submitting an application.
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.
Update – Sometimes we are tied by third party funders to the questions we have to ask, but we always try to ask how information will be used and if it’s necessary.
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.
Update – we continue to use a strength-based approach to our application progress and encourage looking at potential and possibility in both our assessment and decision making processes.
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.
Update – we have improved our FAQ’s to give clearer information about what is needed and use the links to this to explain decision making and what will be needed for a successful application in the future. We don’t publish success rates but are considering this as well as publicising the total amount of funding available where feasible.
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.
Update – although most of our grants are small, we are trialling some multi-year funding in 2025 to give groups more security and flexibility in how they work.
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.
Update – we are increasing opportunities for applicants to engage with if they want to, through attending more funding forums, trialling online drop-ins (forthcoming) and increasing group visits, but only where the groups are happy with that.
We will review our feedback requirements to ensure they remain appropriate and proportionate to the funding provided.
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.
All information about grant criteria is published on our website.
We run open access Let’s Talk events with recorded videos when we introduce new funding programmes and also provide updates on our existing programmes
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. We also offer one-to-one meetings if additional support is needed.
We have introduced a two-stage application process for most of our programmes with a simple Expression of Interest form and eligibility check list to check eligibility prior to submitting a full application.
We have revised our application forms to reduce the amount of information requested and make them simpler to complete.
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 are working to introduce a new portal-style CRM system that will mean that repeat applicants only have to enter their core organisation information once and all applications are stored under one log-in.
Due diligence documentation is stored so that it only has to be uploaded if it has changed since previous applications.
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 will prioritise funding organisations facing financial risk and low reserves where we know they are strategically important in their communities.
We recognise that not every grant will be without challenges but understand that this is a valuable opportunity to learn. We also recognise the role of our grants in leveraging other funds for less-well known, smaller or new groups giving a vote of confidence to other funders.
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 or take exceptionally urgent applications to our board of trustees for approval outside our usual schedule of panel meetings.
We plan to review how funding decisions can be made for our donor-advised funds as this can slow down our ability to give decisions to grantees through these funds.
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.
We have diversified our Main Grants panel with members who have expertise across Gloucestershire’s communities and voluntary sector. Whenever we set up a new grant programme we aim to recruit panel members with lived experience on the grant panel.
We are now looking at developing a decision-making framework for our community grants panels to assist with being able to provide more structured feedback on unsuccessful applications.
We are flexible in how grants are spent within the costs of a particular project and will write this into the grant offer though occasionally funds that we manage have less flexible constraints on spending and timelines which we will always make clear as part of the pre-application guidance and grant criteria.
Wherever our funding allows, we are able to support grantees in granting project variations/extensions.
Because we have confidence in our application and due diligence processes, we feel confident that we can trust organisations that we support to know how best to use their grants to maximise impact.
We are open to applications for core funding and unrestricted funding to support overall organisation aims through some of our grant programmes. We will aim to make this clear in our grants criteria.
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 organisations we fund choose their own outcomes.
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 aim to keep reporting as light touch as possible and aim to introduce more flexible ways of reporting (using existing reports or videos)
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 rather than lenghty due diligence checks we have a 30-60 minute due diligence call. We approve nearly all applications that come to committee and compensate those that don’t with £500 towards their time.
Since 2023 we have also clarified our funding priorities and criteria via our website and invited one page summaries from groups who may be a fit for funding. We will limit this to one page to minimize the time spent in writing to us.
Once funded, we 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. We also have due diligence calls because we fund a variety of organizational types and it is quicker and more valuable for us to understand their thinking behind org structures, policies etc than a more standardised approach to eligibility which may exclude many of our smaller, newer and overseas partners who are doing good relevant work. 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. We publish all of our grant making via 360 giving and keep an up to date list of grantee partners on our website. We also publish rejection rates and a more general overview of how grant making decisions are evolving during the spend out on our website.
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. As we have grown the grantee network since 2022 we do an increasing amount of convening, mostly online around specific topics of interest to our portfolio, sometimes presented by grantee partners sometimes by external experts, we always offer to compensate speakers for their time. We also have active whatsapp groups for our portfolio in which partners communicate with each other and we have an alumni group of former grantees who are invited to all of the above. We also offer a range of capacity building offers to our partners based on their feedback and where this takes a significant amount of time we compensate partners for that time. 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 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 us about 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.
We will continue to improve our messaging and external comms, further reducing the amount of speculative ineligible enquiries. While we encourage relevant projects to get in touch, we only invite entities to apply when there is a c. 80% chance of a positive funding output. These applications are co-created depending on the comfort/capacity/ability of the applicant to complete our straightforward form. A typical application is completed in under 2 hours, and all grant reporting towards end of funding periods is considered as a new application.
Our chief interest is how the money will help achieve scale (defined as an ability to serve more people) – 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 complex. 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.
We continue to improve our financial systems, due-diligence processes, and subsequent functional administration of grant programmes. We set realistic expectations on the basis of under-promising and over-delivering.
Our website is clear and (when time allows) will publish on 360Giving. In our first accounts we have itemised our grants so a record of our giving is in the public domain.
We can be entirely flexible as we give largely unrestricted money – we rely on our partners to deploy our resources against their most pressing need.
Our body of knowledge pertaining to the role crypto can play in creating social value is growing. It remains a priority to publish thought leadership articles throughout 2025.
Our funding is heavily relational so we tend to have a good idea of the efficacy of a grant long before any reporting is due. All reporting is centred around the question: “how did our funding help you serve more people”.
Small Grants programme: this has a two-stage application process which helps limit time wasted on applications that are unlikely to be successful. Size of fund, size of grant, success rates and clear timelines are all specified on the website.
Eligibility criteria (Focus Areas and Geographies) are clear and specific in order that those charities selected to make a full application stand a chance of being funded.
Major Grants programme: this is a closed programme. Trustees proactively seek out small-medium sized charities whose work closely aligns with the Company’s Focus Areas and Geographies, and that complement the work of Haberdashers’ schools and/or churches. A new website is being planned and this will be made clearer at that stage.
In Stage 1 of the Small Grant application process the burden of the work falls on us as funder. Only very minimal information is required that allows us to do desk-based research to determine if the charity goes through to Stage 2.
Stage 2 is a simple and straightforward application form (Word doc). All answers can be recycled from other applications. Word counts are for guidance and are not precise.
We understand that charities live and work in an increasingly uncertain world. But we work on the basis of trust: that our charity partners are in the best position to determine how to meet the needs of their local communities.
We are very open to being flexible with a charity’s funding if the circumstances of their programme delivery changes.
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 finding out the funding decision. There is a 6 week period between the Small Grants programme deadline and the outcome of the decision making.
The information on our website has been amplified to include the number of applicants and success rates for our Small Grants programme.
Each decline letter briefly outlines the reasons why the charity was not successful.
Our grant making data has been on 360 Giving for the past two years.
We have a track record of working with charities as circumstances change. Much of what we fund is core/unrestricted so the programmes can develop and evolve within the context of their work.
We build relationships with our charity partners and on the basis of trust are always open to conversations about how the allocated funds are deployed.
From the very beginning of the application process the tone is set for our grant-making: open, honest, relational.
For charities who are successful we endeavour to offer the expertise of the membership of the Company to them, through volunteering and pro bono support.
We offer Charities RoundTables to some of our grant-holders in order to help create a meaningful relationship and open dialogue/communication. We listen carefully to our charity partners and respond to their suggestions to improve our grant-making.
This is an area that we are seeking to evolve/improve. We don’t have a fixed reporting template, which we hope gives freedom to charity partners to report in a way that suits them. They can offer an annual report, or a report written for another funder. We are exploring the possibility of conversational reporting, where we can hear directly about the impact of the charity’s programmes.
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 about their likelihood of success and will publish success rates.
We will maintain our two stage process. A succinct application form is followed by a telephone assessment to ensure that all applicants are given an equal 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 12 weeks, with the average turnaround time from submission to decision being 8 weeks on our main Community Flex Programme. We will continue to issue letters of offer within 24 hours of board 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), 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 projects 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 application, 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.
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.
Rather than run multiple small funds, we advertise a general fund programme and manage the allocation of different funds in the background to avoid the need for groups to submit multiple applications.
We are working towards publishing success rates for each programme we open.
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 and are not overlapping. We take care not to ask compound questions that can be confusing to answer. We modify the level of detail requested in proportion to the size of grant available.
We enable grantees to choose what outcomes and indicators of impact they will report back on, and encourage them to choose one or two meaningful ones rather than selecting all and making it difficult for themselves to report back.
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 over the past few years have managed to significantly reduce the amount of documentation that applicants are required to submit.
We adapt our due diligence checks for newer and small organisations.
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 also encourage our donors to be comfortable with allowing overhead/ full cost recovery costs in the applications.
We have stopped asking questions about how organisations will sustain the work when our funding ends unless there is the possibility of continuation funding through or programmes.
We will be continuing the conversation about acceptance of risk with our trustees as part of our strategic development for 2026 and beyond.
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 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 360Giving and towards publishing success rates for our programmes as well as running an open anonymous survey to collect our grantees feedback.
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. Most requests are managed via a simple email, but where the change is more complex we have a brief form to complete to guide the groups request.
We are looking at ways to incorporate that, as part of our new grantee portal to build confidence with applicants, it is ok to ask for a change.
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.
When launching a new fund, we run webinars to introduce the fund and explain what it is aiming to achieve.
Applicants are encouraged to contact us via phone or email to discuss their project prior to starting an application. 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.
Once applications are received, we aim to ask any necessary questions to process a grant at one time wherever possible. Where we run a two stage process we give clear advice and guidance to applicants to enable them to have the best chance of success at full application stage.
When awarding a grant, we also provide a link to the end of grant monitoring form, so groups can see from the start what information they will need to collect and report back on.
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.
Following a consultation exercise with our local VCSE sector we have amended the information asked at the end of a grant to focus much more on activities and outcomes rather than detailed financial 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.
We endeavour to improve the grant seeker experience through our new strategy centring user journey in our designs. Our funding priorities, application forms and guidelines will be published on our website. Applicants are encouraged to contact us if anything is unclear or to have a discussion about their work prior to working on an application. 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 forms and questions are developed using feedback from applicants and grant holders. We ask all applicants for feedback. We take a continuous improvement approach, making changes to ensure that our forms are easy to complete. Forms will be designed with a clear link to assessment and decision making frameworks. We receive positive feedback on our forms and guidance documents and pride ourselves on this.
We continue to accept our share of risk, and are realistic about the environment that our grant applicants and holders operate in. If we identify risks during assessment or funded period we will ask organisations for additional information and 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 assurances in the future.
We publish decision making time scales on our website. We monitor how long it takes for applicants to receive a decision and publish this on our website. In our previous programmes the end to end application process has taken 6 months and we are keen to reduce this in the future.
We have provided feedback to applicants through a call back form on our website, or in more in-depth phone calls depending on how far in the assessment process they reached. We have published success rates and reasons for rejection on our website. Through our closure period we explicitly encouraged applicants to consider the current success rates before taking the decision to apply. We share our grant making data on 360 giving.
We are flexible in our funding approaches and recognise that needs change and grant holders face a changing circumstances through our funding period. We have offered both project cost and running costs grants, with a focus on reducing restrictions where possible. We encourage grant holders to have conversations with us if they need to amend their grant outcomes, duration, or focus. This is a core part of our offer, however we have been proactive in reminding grant holders about our willingness to have these conversations through the pandemic, the cost of living crisis, and the riots of 2024.
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.
Under our main grant programmes we have only asked 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. 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 how much funding we have to distribute so that applicants can have a better sense of how likely they are to be successful.
Whilst our application forms seem to have been clear and comparatively straightforward for applicants to complete, 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. We are able to fund new organisations.
We now have pre-set, fixed, application windows and which are published in advance on our website so that applicants can plan ahead. We will also state in advance when an applicant should receive a decision so that they are not hanging on waiting for an indeterminate time and will strive to meet reasonable turn-around times. If there is a significant change to the published turn-around time we will let applicants know and the reason why.
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. In the meantime we will direct people to our published Annual report & Accounts which contain most of this information.
We award unrestricted grants wherever possible but where we cannot then we will support as much flexibility as possible within the project or core funding offered. 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. In all our communications we will endeavour for the tone to be supportive, informative and flexible.
Our application forms and monitoring forms are as simple and clear as possible and designed to be unambiguous – although we will always monitor these to ensure this. We make small grants to small organisations and are always conscious that many groups do not have staff paid specifically to do the administrative things we need, so we try to keep the burden on them as light as possible.
We would welcome this as CIC trying to access funding
We would welcome this as CIC trying to access funding
We would welcome this as CIC trying to access funding
We would welcome this as CIC trying to access funding
We would welcome this as CIC trying to access funding
We would welcome this as CIC trying to access funding
We believe all our communications are purposeful
We would welcome this as CIC trying to access funding
All our published application documents have been independently reviewed for clarity and consistency and we will do this on a regular basis. We have reviewed our guidance to be transparent with our priorities, eligibility and exclusions. We will provide feedback for all unsuccessful applications.
After each funding round, we review all rejected applications, looking for key eligibility criteria that we hadn’t identified or made clear.
We have asked 49 applicants for feedback about our application process and reviewed the application form based on this review. Part of the review was to make sure there is no repetition for information required.
We are reviewing “what good looks like” in relation to, e.g. reserve levels; diversity of funding and sustainable funding. We will share this with applicants.
Our Grant Committee has carried out an appetite for risk in funding and we will share this on the website.
We don’t require detailed activity plans. We trust organisations to make their own operational decisions.
We make it clear to all applicants when decisions will be made and always do this within 30 days of the end of the grants round.
We have an open funding programme and people can apply at any time.
We always aim to give useful feedback to all unsuccessful applicants – we never just say ‘we had more applications than we could fund’.
As a small local funder, we offer core funding.
We will be flexible and trusting of organisations that we fund so they know the grant can be used on expenditure relating to the type of work, beneficiary group or geography we are concerned with.
All our grantees have a dedicated point of contact in the team.
We will be clear what our capacity is for a relationship with grantees, as well as making sure our funding terms and conditions are reviewed and clear and not time-consuming for the organisation.
We will make sure all applicants are aware of the monitoring that will be required if awarded a grant.
We will jointly agree with grantees what grant reporting will be most useful for the organisation to provide to us to reduce multiple reporting requirements for the grantee
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 continue to ensure that that you can find everything you need to know about applying for a grant in one place on our website
• We will have all our application guidance and forms checked by someone external.
• We will publish our success rates and how many grants we expect to make.
Commissioned funds: we invite organisations to apply if we are interested in funding them, so they know from the start that they have a very good chance of funding.
• We will review the guidance to ensure partners do not start an application before they are ready or that needs changing.
Open-access funds: we encourage people to contact us if they are thinking of applying and talk to us about their ideas, and we will tell them whether we think they have a good chance of funding or not.
We will seek feedback from our grantees and partners, via our annual survey and by requesting feedback when forms are submitted and include them in the design of the future application and monitoring forms.
We will investigate options to make the application process more accessible, i.e. not just completing a form on the portal.
We take responsibility for compiling information on applicants from publicly held records (e.g., accounts from the Charity Commission).
We will review our application, guidance and monitoring forms annually to ensure they continue to be relevant:
• In 2025 we will focus on providing clear explanations on the information required for each question to ensure applicants do not provide information we already have, e.g. why certain issues or geographical areas are a priority
• For our commissioned funds and long-term partners, we will pilot a slimmed down application process focusing on key activities and deliverables
We will seek feedback from our grantees and partners, via our annual survey and by requesting feedback when forms are submitted and include them in the design of the future application and monitoring forms.
We will investigate options for key information in the application form to be pre-populated for repeat applicants.
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 current pressures on charities and community organisations (rising costs and rising demand), we will continue to 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.
Commissioned funds: we invite applications from partner organisations who we risk assess as we develop the relationship. This approach minimises the possibility of applications being rejected due to risk factors.
• We will explore if we need to define and share with applicants any potential risk factors that could impact the success off their application.
Open access fund: we are seeking new partnerships and projects to work with and are open to accepting risk in this approach. We share this with our applicants and we will define and share any potential risk factors that could impact the success off their application.
Where we identify a higher level of risk in any of the grants we want to make, we are open about this with grantees, work with them to identify solutions and recognise this as part of the grant award process, offering further help and support where needed.
If we have not made a grant because of risk, we explain why and what the organisation can do to give us more assurance if they apply again.
We have a grant changes process that is accessible via our website (shared with all applicants and awardees) which recognises that things can change and allows our funded partners to inform us of changes and work with us to ensure this does not impact on their funding.
Through our commissioned funds we offer multiyear grant awards (up to three years) to offer continuity of funding.
As well as covering project costs, we provide funding for core costs as well.
We are actively funding organisations facing financial risk and low reserves where they are strategically important in their communities.
We publish timescales on our website and guidance (i.e. will make our decisions within 8 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 have a 1 stage application process.
Commissioned funding: we have rolling application windows so our partners can apply when the time is right and we commit to making a decision within 8 weeks of receiving an application.
• We will improve our communication with grantees about grant end dates and next steps to allow them to prepare any future funding applications.
• Where the funding relationship is ending, we will communicate clearly and provide support to help them identify alternative funds/support.
Open-access funding: we provide updates on timescales on our website. When we launch a funding round we provide an 8 week window to submit an application.
Applicants and funded partners have multiple points of contact to improve speed of communication.
We publish our grant data on 360Giving.
We publish an annual report that includes application and grant analysis.
We explain our decision-making processes in the application guidance.
We give feedback to unsuccessful applicants.
• We will review our feedback over the last year and request feedback on the usefulness of our feedback via our annual survey
We conduct an anonymous annual survey and publish results and our commitments to review and what changes we have made.
• We will also trial collecting anonymous feedback on our website about our application processes and review it twice a year
We will clearly publish our willingness to receive feedback and challenge from grantees on our website and in guidance documents.
We are a flexible funder and we are responsive to our grantees’ needs and changing circumstances.
We fund both core costs and delivery costs. We make this clear in our guidance.
• We will look into how we can provide even more flexibility and piloting approaches to unrestricted funding that allow us to capture specific reporting on the activities most relevant to our priorities (outcomes focused).
We make ourselves readily available to grantees to discuss unexpected challenges/changing needs and will be flexible in helping the grantee meet these. We have a clear and published change request process and commit to responding within 14 days.
We offer multi-year grants through our commissioned funding programmes.
We provide flexibility on budgets and have no limits on specific budget lines.
• We will explore offering a light touch approach to budgeting/requesting costings alongside improving flexibility and exploring unrestricted funding.
We are a relational funder, and each organisation we fund has a dedicated contact person.
We will investigate options to make our funding terms and conditions more of a two-way agreement, with commitments from us as well as the funded organisation.
As part of the award process, we will explain why we have awarded a grant and what aspects of their work we are particularly interested in.
We strive to create an environment for grantees to safely raise challenges with us.
Open access funding: we deliver ‘Meet the team’ sessions for all new grantees which introduces the team; introduces other grantees; enables us to communicate our commitments and our approach as a relational funder.
Commissioned funding: we will explore how we can replicate our ‘Meet the team’ sessions to add value to the relationship for our long-standing partners.
We explain what we do with reports from funded organisations and how we use the information
• We will review this to ensure we include who reads them, what assessments we make, how the reports feed into future decision making and broader analysis of our grant programmes.
We are committed to light touch reporting and we only ask for information we need and will use, and we give feedback.
We will consult with grantees about what will work and make it easier to submit reports:
• explore what reports they compile for themselves and could provide to us, instead of using our form, or providing a choice of own report or using our template.
• Offer grantees a conversation instead of or as well as the option to submit a report
We are reviewing our approach to impact reporting and working towards reporting on how we support organisations rather than reporting on the precise impact of our money, lightening the reporting burden for our grantees.
• We are exploring a move to learning questions
• We are exploring how any impact reporting will be of benefit to grantees as well, e.g. providing easy and/or free access to impact platforms and data
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 outside of 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.
•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 details of new grants 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 many 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 and other relevant factors.
•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 periodically.
•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 2-4 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 internally.
– We offer pre-application advice on a one-to-one basis and for groups over email, telephone and in person (including over video). The contact details of all our Grants Team are available on our website and we also state who is best to contact for grant enquiries in the first instance, i.e. the Grants Officer and Grants Manager.
– 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 (including over video). The contact details of all our Grants Team are available on our website and we also state who is best to contact for grant enquiries in the first instance, i.e. the Grants Officer and Grants Manager.
– 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. The 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 also use the data we collect to demonstrate our own organisational impact which is shared externally through our Impact Framework and our Annual Report and Accounts, as well as other research/reviews/blogs we publish.
– 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 twice (2020 and 2023) through a Perception Audit (which comprises 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.
– We check in with all our grant-holders at the six month point of the first year of their grant with us to check how things are going and to ensure they are clear on who their point of contact is in the organisation and to remind them that we are available/on hand for them to share concerns etc. with, should they have any during the lifetime of their grant.
– Timetables for our grants programmes are published on our website and we stick to these timetables. Applicants usually receive a decision on their first stage application within 6-8 weeks.
– 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.
– We seek to process applications as quickly as we can and even when demand is exponentially higher than usual, we prepare for this by checking application numbers on a weekly basis and making plans if we think more time will need to be allocated for staff to complete first stage reviews of applications.
– We seek to remain open to applications at all times and even with demand increasing, a new strategy, a new structure within the team, staff sickness etc, we have not closed our grantmaking in the last five years.
– We have a pool of interim staff we can turn to for support with our grantmaking (and our wider operations supporting our grantmaking) if we have expected or unexpected staff shortages.
– 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 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.
– We regularly accommodate requests for flexibility such as reporting extensions, changes to objectives, or changes to grant length.
– We adapt our grant offer based on grant-holder feedback.
– 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 reporting process is clearly outlined 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.
– Our website also details the process for reapplying when a grant has ended. We allow current grant-holders to reapply within the last three months of their grant so that they know in advance whether they are likely to be supported again.
– 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.
– For core grants, we accept annual accounts in reporting rather than asking grant-holders to submit a bespoke budget.
– The reporting requirements are outlined on our website for applicants to review before deciding to make an application.
– As part of our reporting process, we read and review progress and final reports, and then send thorough email responses to our grant-holders that outline our reflections on the report we have received and the steps we have taken in response (e.g. releasing a payment).
– 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.
– As part of our planned website rebuild, we will review the user journey to make sure the information for applicants and grantees is clearly signposted and easy to access.
– 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.
– Deadlines for the School Holiday Activity Fund have been brought forward, ensuring decisions are received earlier to allow plenty of time for grantees to plan their activities.
– 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 aim to include more information about success rates and the average size of grants awarded on our website in future.
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.
Local knowledge and the ability to visit grantees helps to build trust, which in turn can lead to great flexibility.
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.
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 coming 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 accessible 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-consuming 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 equally, 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 beneficiaries 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.
Clear information on our website explaining the funding available and the chance of success. https://kpe4trust.wixsite.com/kpe4
Our application form is only eight questions long and designed to take 30-60 mins to complete. Respondents are encouraged to leave any questions that are too difficult or time-consuming for them to answer.
The charities and organisations tell us how their impact should be measured and help us to understand the challenges they face, so they can then be open around goals not being met. We fail forward, learning from mistakes.
We are clear on our website when trustee decisions are made (bi-annual and monthly depending on the fund type), and always communicate with charities within a week of decisions being made. We also have a small pot available for immediate distribution for urgent requests.
This is our biggest gap. We get so many applications for non-core funding and the trustees tend to tell us what they want to fund rather than providing detail on why they don’t want to fund a charity. Likewise, schools recommend charities and also tend to focus on the charities they would like to see funded but don’t give detailed responses around those they are not interested in seeing funded. This is something we will look to improve in 2025/26.
KPE4’s charitable focus is on young people growing up in Pilton and Muirhouse, therefore our funding is restricted to costs associated with projects serving this demographic. As such, we can only provide unrestricted funding to charities that only focus on young people in the local community. However, we are very flexible with charities who have restricted funding and request to use the funds in a different manner than originally applied for.
We have great relationships with the charities and organisations we support. We ask to be invited to board and staff meetings so we can build our understanding, without taking up extra time.
We give the autonomy to the charities to tell us when and what they will report on. Our only requirement is that it does not exceed 500 words and that we recieve one report within a 12 month period.
We will not waste time – we ask for a short email or phone call as an expression of interest to see whether our funds are a suitable match in the first instance. We offer optional workshops for recipients who want to work more closely with us.
We will only ask relevant questions – we do not ask for information that we could gather ourselves from the public domain, and only ask questions that will help us to inform our funding decisions. We ensure the information asked for in application forms is
proportionate to the size of the grant.
We will accept our share of the risk – we do not expect small and new organisations to be financially stable, and accept that risk. We will put more focus on understanding how organisations manage in uncertainty than, for example, on how much they have in reserves or how diverse their funding is.
We will act with urgency – we publish response, decision and payment timetables. We make decisions on applications within a time that feels reasonable given the size, duration and importance of the grant on offer. Going forward we will give more notice of when programmes are opening and closing so that charities have time to plan when they make their applications.
We will be transparent about our feedback – we give most feedback during the early stages of applying to ensure that there is a good fit when the application moves forward. We invite all unsuccessful applicants to telephone us for feedback. We are working towards building a diverse group of Trustees. We are committed to carrying out analysis on the diversity and equity of our grant distribution.
We will enable applicants to to respond to changing priorities – wherever possible we will offer unrestricted funding, giving flexibility to spend it as needed on anything within their charitable objects. Whenever possible we will allow them to make adjustments to operational plans and budgets when needed, without asking for permission in advance.
We are clear about our relations – we set out the intended relationship between us in writing, including descriptions of the types of contact (e.g., reports, emails, phone calls or meetings), the frequency and depth of contact, and endeavour to make this a two way process so that it can fit with their preferred ways of working.
We will commit to light-touch reporting – we offer grantees a conversation as well as or instead of a written report and we offer an optional reporting template for those who prefer it. We are flexible about deadlines.
We currently have limited information on our website about our grant programmes, or our grant-making priorities. We are in the process of revising our funding priorities to better align them with our strategy. We currently have a holding message advising grantees of this pause and will provide further updates once the review is complete. This will include much clearer priorities and expectations as a funder. We will also be reviewing previously asked questions to make our FAQ’s more relevant.
We have implemented 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 have designed a new application form and will be reviewing this before we launch future funding rounds to ensure it is fit for purpose. We are also moving our grant management operations onto Salesforce, which has the potential for certain innovations which we believe could also make the process less resource intensive for charities.
We don’t require detailed activity plans or work-plans, although we do sometimes ask for clarification on certain issues. We mostly 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 are also looking to implement a much clearer payment and reporting schedule to streamline the process on both sides. With our move to Salesforce we anticipate being able to automate reminders and ensure that grantees are supported to adhere to the schedule.
We will be reviewing the methods by which we provide feedback with this likely focused on second round applicants due to resource limitations. With our move to Salesforce we will be able to more easily capture data on applications and will look to begin publishing success/rejection rates and reasons once Salesforce is full embedded.
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 will be developing a schedule for reporting going forward which will outline the reporting commitments for our grants. 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. As previously mentioned, we will also be outlining all reporting requirements to charities at the beginning of their grant period and will be using Salesforce to automate reminders to make sure that we are supporting charities to uphold their reporting commitments.
Streamlining applications and reporting where possible.
Take the lead from the charity on the level of contact and funder plus support.
Only ask application questions that directly relate to our assessment criteria. Only ask for essential reporting information.
Take into account the financial circumstances of the charity as a whole.
Take into account the challenges and context of the wider funder environment.
Our approach to understanding how a charity safeguards its beneficiaries and staff will be clear and accessible.
We will make decisions as quickly as possible, within the constraints of our Livery calendar.
We will inform applicants of the outcome of their application at the earliest opportunity.
Improve the accessibility and transparency of our grant round materials and grant-giving.
Provide general feedback to all applicants where possible, and tailored feedback to those making a main grant application.
Listen to our grantees’ evolving needs. Respond to provide support whenever possible.
Inform our main charity grant holders of our added value opportunities.
Conversational reporting when possible. No undue burden on small grant recipients.
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 continue to review our application and reporting forms 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.
All timetables and deadlines are publisehd within our fund criteria including the expected decision date to enable applicants to plan their work and delivery
All requests for changes to budgets and plans are dealt with within a week of receiving the request.
We give constructive feedback to all our applicants regardless of success, be upfront about success rates from the outset and share all our grant making data on 360 Giving
We will try and give more unrestricted and multi-year funding wherever possible . This will be through our existing strategic funds such as Leeds Fund but also try and influence donors to give this way.
We have set targets for flexible funding in Leeds and Bradford
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.
Be clear on the use of AI in grant making and the potential use by applicants.
We will continue to review our formal reporting requirements to make it easier for grant holders , especially where grants are relatively smaller , so that it can be less narrative and more drop down menus and tick boxes where possible.
We will also review what questions we need to ask and what we could omit if possible.
Across our open grant programmes 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 have conversations with our team and either don’t have to complete further forms or have support in the meetings with us to develop their proposals
Our criteria are 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 also run pre-application webinars for all grant programmes with Q&A opportunity
In some of our work, we work closely with communities and fund organisations that have been identified as being the right fit and best suited to do the work. This process is based on a relational approach, sometimes involving a short application form and working to timescales that work for them and us.
For our grant making to front line delivery organisations, 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. For some bespoke grant programmes applicants may have the opportunity to change/add to their proposals. Following conversations with applicants we complete any further paperwork in house and every question asked as part of the assessment call is integral to decision making.
For our work in communities, we only ask questions to ensure complete our due diligence and put practical arrangements in place; we would also encourage those we work with to ask questions of us too, particularly about how they would like to work with us.
We primarily provide fully unrestricted funds (90% of our grants in 2024), which can be used to build back reserves. We are actively funding charities that are facing financial risk and have very few 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. Unrestricted funds do not need to be spent within a time period.
Our provision of dev support and our view of it means that we are not seeking perfection. We are explicit about this. We don’t want to fund the ‘perfect’ organisation. We are funding potential.
Where we provide restricted funding, we aim to be as flexible as possible. We understand that work will often not go to plan and may not be successful. We share this risk, in what is often emerging and experimental ways of working and see this as an opportunity to learn about what works and what doesn’t. We provide development support and training, and opportunities to share learning with peers.
We operate a grant round programme, rather than an open rolling programme for our open grant programmes. For our work in communities, we fund as and when we need to.
In all our programmes, we will provide a timetable of our decision-making points and when applicants can expect to hear from us, and we have increased the number of decision points. Throughout the assessment stages, decline emails are sent within a maximum of two weeks of each decision milestone.
For our grant making to frontline delivery organisations, those going through all stages of the process get a decision within four months of the programme closing date. Likewise, we send an informal email to those awarded within 48 hours of the decision, which is then followed up with formal communications with. We will continue to reflect on how we might make decisions more quickly in each grant round.
For our Local Collaborations programme, we build in time to allow applicants to finalise their proposals, therefore we make final decisions within 5 months.
We provide feedback to all applicants. The further the applicant progresses through the process the more detailed the feedback provided will be.
We share our grants data with 360Giving, and on our website. We have adopted the EDI taxonomy from 360Giving so we can interrogate our data and look for and address any biases.
Where we have the data (i.e it’s not a new grant programme) we publish our success rates from previous rounds.
We work alongside the communities we are investing in and involve partners in shaping decision making around the use of any resource. Where we aren’t able to go ahead with something we are open about it and open about why.
We primarily provide unrestricted funds which can be spent on anything the charity needs. When we do award restricted grants, we respond flexibly to changing needs and priorities.
Our dev support also works with charity partners to address changing circumstances allowing them to respond to emerging needs and to reprioritise when needed.
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 and expertise. Where they attend events, we pay their expenses.
Following each grant programme, we hold a welcome and induction session for new and returning charity partners, to discuss the practical requirement for their grant, to share our development support offer, and our relational approach enabling charity partners to understand the breadth of support available and help them to prepare for development conversations with their Regional Manager. ,
For each of our funded partners, we have a specific Foundation lead who develops a trusted relationship with them. The team 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 partner. We are very careful that we do not overburden charities with unnecessary communication and surveys and evolve our approach to communication in line with feedback.
For our unrestricted grants, we have removed outcomes and objectives from the application forms.
In asking charities about their organisation at the 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 sample of charity partners will also be asked to participate in a mid-grant learning conversation.
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 have committed to sharing how we use the monitoring information each we received, and to having a copy of the monitoring reports available on our website. 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, where possible, to using the data a charity would normally collect rather than asking for specific outcomes.
For our restricted grants we regularly review our application processes. We have a similar process to monitoring as our unrestricted grants with the addition of asking charity partners to report on the objectives and outcomes they have identified.
For our work in communities we are working on a monitoring process that our partners can use with all stakeholders in the work and not solely for our benefit.
a. Explain our funding priorities clearly.
b. Ask potential applicants to complete our eligibility criteria, and if eligible they will be able to access our funding application form.
c. Publish our estimated grants budget for the year and approximately the number of grants we expect to fund under each grants programme.
d. Upload our application form, funding guidelines, funding deadlines, and all relevant documents necessary in one place on our website so that applicants can make an informed application.
e. Create and upload a Word version of our application form for all our grants programmes so applicants can download it.
f. Answer questions from applicants to help them decide if the programme is for them.
g. Give feedback to organisations seeking funding for 2-3 years to help them in the next selection process.
a. Regularly review our application forms to ensure they are user friendly.
b. Not ask questions that are not necessary in assessing applications.
c. Ensure our online applications can be saved and easily accessed later.
d. Allow space to explain circumstances for example; high reserves, over spending, etc.
e. Set reasonable and realistic word limits.
a. Support newly established organisations and or constituted organisations.
b. Only ask applicants of their current financial year budget and not their projected budget.
c. Not require certain levels of unrestricted reserves to qualify for our funding.
d. Not ask how they are going to continue their project when our funding ends.
e. Give multi-year grants.
f. Visit organisations we invite to stage 2 that applied for multi-year funding to see their work and have an open discussion about their challenges and strengths.
a. Publish clear and realistic timetables for the year for all our grants programmes.
b. Publish when our trustees are meeting to make decisions on applications.
c. Inform organisations of the results of their applications; whether positive or negative within 4 weeks after the grants committee made their decisions.
d. Make the full annual grants payment within 4 weeks of receiving grants agreement/necessary documents from successful applicants.
a. Offer to give detailed feedback on unsuccessful applications.
b. Respond to organisations that require detailed feedback.
c. Publish our grants online and on 360 Giving.
d. Analyse the diversity and equity of our grants funding on a regular basis.
e. Publish the most common reasons for rejection on our website to help guide applicants.
a. Provide multi-year funding.
b. Accept direct and indirect costs to deliver projects funded under our Projects’ Grants and Partners for Health programmes.
c. Allow organisations to adjust their budget and implementation as they see fit without asking permission from us so long as the original objectives/targets of the projects are met.
d. Not ask for detailed budget and activity/project plans in the delivery of projects funded by us.
a. Publish London Catalyst staff names organisations can contact to discuss their applications.
b. Publish our staff’s contact details on our website.
c. We will respond to our grantees and potential applicants’ queries as soon as possible.
a. Ensure our reporting requirements are proportionate and meaningful.
b. Only ask for information we need.
c. Be flexible with our reporting methods and deadlines.
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 are very careful in communicating with the groups we fund, as we know how busy they are. Before we send out a communication, we check with other colleagues to see if any other communication emails were sent recently. We coordinate what information is requested and when. We gather most of the available information about the groups through existing channels, like the Charity Commission and Companies House and only communicate with the groups when we have to.
For our main grants, we will only ask the groups to complete a self-assessment tool that was developed with them to benefit them. An external consultant analyses the results of these questionnaires, and we base our sector support programme on the findings. Before we design our sector support offer, we bring the groups together and discuss the results with them first. They are involved in designing our future support offer.
For our partnership grants, we have agreed with other trusts and foundations that the learning partners’ reports will be used to track progress, and we will do the rest of the monitoring together through the Propel portal. We are reviewing to remove our six monthly data collection for this fund. We will only ask for further information if it is not in the learning reports and Propel portal.
We clearly explain our funding priorities to prospective and current grantees. For prospective grantees we clearly explain the application process and publish assessment criteria. We offer to answer questions and discuss proposals with prospective grantees.
Our open fund has a two-stage process, asking only for information that cannot be sourced publicly while our strategic partnerships fund is invitation only.
We will continue to adapt and review our application forms seeking to have a simple, straightforward and clear form and criteria.
We will make sure risk is proportionate to the size of the grant. We don’t ask for detailed delivery plans, as we trust grantees as the experts to make their own decisions.
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 make and communicate about decisions from an expression of interest to our open grants programme within 30 days of receiving an application.
We will continue to be open and transparent with our grantees and potential applicants on our funding position and imminent future plans.
We will publish our grants data to 360Giving to improve charitable giving.
We will provide feedback to unsuccessful applicants. Unsuccessful applicants are able to reapply to our open fund at any time and our feedback is designed to help applicants have a clear view of what we are able to fund and how they could shape their applications.
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 encourage an open dialogue with our grantees to support revisions to respond to changes and realities on the ground.
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.
When we make a grant, we jointly agree the expectations for the relationship between us
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.
Our guidelines are clearly stated on our website. We track patterns emerging in the applications that we are declining and update our guidelines accordingly.
Potential applicants can send us questions via our website, including questions about eligibility.
For our Young People & Education programme we have an eligibility checker for our three special initiatives. We will consider introducing this for all programmes.
For our Young People & Education programme we hold webinars at the launch of new special initiatives, to be clear about eligibility and guidelines upfront.
All our open programmes have an expression of interest process to cut down on wasted time.
We have a proactive approach to our Heritage & Arts programme, to avoid large numbers of applications when only a small number of grants can be made.
For our Church & Communities, Older People & Housing and Young People & Education programmes, we use a two-stage application process – a shorter, lighter-touch Expression of Interest, which we can turn around quickly. Those requests that are taken forward complete 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.
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 can provide capacity building support through our Funder Plus offer, which helps mitigate risk.
For our Church & Communities and Older People & Housing programmes we run an open rolling programme, which is always open to Expressions of Interest. We review all Expressions of Interest within a maximum of 4 weeks of submission, often less. 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.
For our Young People & Education programme, we operate funding rounds and have an Expression of Interest process. With those invited to submit a full application we discuss our timeframe upfront and how long a decision is expected to take.
For our Heritage & Arts programme we discuss timescales with all invited applicants upfront.
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 within five working days.
When our grant holders face issues, we swiftly react – e.g. during the pandemic our first Covid Rapid Response grant was awarded on the first day of the first lockdown and in Spring 2023 we issued automatic grant uplifts to organisations funded through Church & Communities and Older People & Housing programmes to mitigate the cost-of-living crisis.
We are transparent that our Church & Communities, Older People & Housing and Young People & Education Special Initiatives are open funding opportunities, for which any eligible organisation can apply. We are also transparent that we only approach organisations to apply for our Heritage & Arts programme and certain strands of the Young People & Education programme.
We publish data about our current major grantmaking programmes on 360 Giving and update this each quarter.
We do monitor applicant success rates. We will include data on success rates in our internal reporting and start publishing this online in 2025.
We let those who submit an Expression of Interest know what our decisions are based on. If we meet with an organisation, as part of assessing an expression of interest, we offer verbal feedback if we later decline it.
We offer verbal feedback to all applicants who submit a full application.
We ask all grantees for feedback on us as part of our reporting process and later in 2024 or early 2025 we will be running our first perceptions survey, asking all applicants and grant holders for feedback on our funding approach.
We keep the website pages up to date with information about our Philanthropy and publish all external evaluation reports into our funding on our website.
To ensure we reach all potential applicants we take a proactive approach to identifying organisations from areas or led by specific communities, as well as funding organisations through the Propel Fund, where we have gaps.
We will continue to offer project, core, or unrestricted funding over multiple years, recognising that our grantees are the experts and know what their organisation needs most.
We are keen to have strong relationships with grantees and we are happy to discuss and make changes in how funding is used during the course of a grant, depending on need/learning.
We make our programme guidelines as clear and short as possible.
We are updating our website to try and make it clearer.
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 also encourage grantees to update us between annual progress reports and visit and attend grantee events, where possible.
Across all our programmes, we believe that our application forms and reporting are proportionate to the size of grant awarded. We only ask questions that are necessary.
We share our report template and the timeframe for reporting at the time of award.
We are considering whether 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 Young People & Education programme, there is an expectation that grantees will work with an external learning partner and as part of a cohort of funded organisations, and this is made clear from the outset.
We try not to ask applicants and grant holders for the same or similar information more than once.
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. We have used this approach twice now and it seems to be working well.
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. Again, we have taken this approach twice now and applicants seem to appreciate it.
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. This is core to how we work and we explain our approach to all our grant-holders.
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. Trustees only meet every four months, so urgency is hard, but when renewing grants to existing grant-holders we invite re-applications for a decision at least six months before the existing grant is due to end to give confidence.
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 Strategic Partners (grantees). We publish our grant-making data on 360Giving.
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. For the last two years we have replaced this requirement with a meeting with the trust manager and a trustee, after which the trust manager produces 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. This seems to be working well and there are no plans to return to the annual report.
We have clear and transparent funding criteria and guidelines on our website, including being open about those organisations which are less likely to be successful. We will review these to ensure the language is welcoming and the information is presented in a simple format.
We remain open to being 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 consider how we present any pre-application contact to ensure applicants know it will be informal and can be via phone or email.
We will maintain an active role in regional Funder networks to increase awareness of our funding programme and priorities.
We share our full stage one application form up front which can be saved and returned to before being submitted, and at stage two we share all questions ahead of the meeting, giving applicants chance to prepare.
We streamlined our two-stage process, making stage one an expression of interest so that applicants spend less time on the application at this stage, but adding in key questions that influence funding decisions to ensure that only those taken through to stage are likely to have a successful outcome.
We will review our expression of interest as we understand that this can be a pressure point for applicants making it difficult to present themselves in the best way in a short space, we will ensure that our stage one provides a balance in terms of offering the ability to share their story appropriately whilst also not taking up too much resource.
We will also review what information we need to make a decision and ensure that we continue to take responsibility for compiling information on applicants from public sources. We provide a space to explain anomalies around, for example, past income or reserves levels.
We will continue to refine our assessment framework, ensuring it is appropriate for our level of funding and will consider how we share this information.
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 willing to take risks, including being open to foundational funding and accepting a risk of failure, particularly in funding new work. In the current challenging operating environment, we are actively funding organisations that are facing financial risk and undertaking cost-saving measures where they are strategically important in their communities.
We publish our dates for the year ahead and stick to them. We are clear with applicants about when they will hear back at each stage.
Small grants are considered outside of our grants panel meetings so that we can ensure an outcome within two months from point of application.
Our decision-making process for larger grants can take 3-6 months, but we make our stage one decisions within two weeks of receiving an application and those who go through to stage two know they have a good chance of funding.
As a small organisation we can be agile, but we have limited capacity, which hinders the speed at which we can turn around decisions. We will continue exploring how we may be able to work quicker.
Whilst we have continued to give useful feedback to all unsuccessful applicants, we have struggled to make progress on analysing and publishing success rates and sharing our data. We commit to posting some meaningful data on success rates on our website and to publishing our grants on 360 Giving.
We have tried to make clear our preference for unrestricted funding but find that sometimes organisations still submit applications for project funding and so we have tried to overcome this by launching a new programme in Bristol specifically for unrestricted funding. We will continue to look at how we present this and aim to make it more obvious on our website. Where possible, even if an organisation has applied for project funding, we will offer an unrestricted grant.
Sometimes we have to restrict grants e.g., to a specific geographical location, but where we do, 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 have remained flexible to changing priorities and needs, over the last year in practice this has meant continuing to fund as organisations have had to go into cost-saving measures such as closure of services and staffing re-structure, as they are starting the process of dissolution, where they have closed in a certain geographical area and so we have re-directed funds to a different location, and where they have changed strategic direction in the development of services, we have also continued to support where funding has over-run by a couple of years due to recruitment challenges, we have supported organisations to change their entire application, and we have considered an application for emergency funding outside of our usual grant panel meetings to hurry it through due to applicant needs.
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 funding is over two years. 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 encourage open and honest communications and want organisations to feel able to share challenges with us.
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 new website with an online application and we meet prospective applicants prior to the application stage.
All questions are relevant to our values; we have a screening stage and an investigation stage prior to decision-making. We are transparent with the applicant throughout the process.
We outline this within our Terms and Conditions and Procedure/Governance Papers, which are on our website for applicants to view.
We have an open grant initiative for under £25k applications, with a turnaround of 6-8 weeks.
Larger grants have a timetable, and dates for the Charitable Funds Committee are on our online website and shared via our social media networks.
We share feedback openly with all applications with a full explanation of the decision-making process. In addition, if applicants are unsuccessful, there is a right of appeal.
Within the Terms and Conditions (contractual agreement), we acknowledge that during the term of the award, priorities may change. We have adopted an Adaptation Request for applicants to complete and they also have constant contact with our Fund Team.
Our values and principles are highly publicised on all our Social Media Platforms. Our Fund Team is here for the whole journey.
If there are any unforeseen circumstances, we publish through our networks, ensure we are open and transparent.
We collate only a Post-Project Evaluation. We do not micro-manage unless help is required. We collect both quantitative and qualitative (case studies) data and share it on our social media platforms.
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. We often step in as the first funder on significant capital projects, to encourage others to follow.
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 give a clear reason for rejection at both enquiry stage and also at full application. We publish the grants we make through our accounts. The success rate is published in our guidelines document.
We aim to provide flexible funding (not always totally unrestricted) ie a contribution towards a programme of work which includes a full range of costs, where our donation can be applied at the charity’s discretion. If a grantee has problems in delivering the work in their application, we are very happy to discuss how we can help, e.g if they need more time or wish to repurpose their grant.
We have comprehensive guidelines which are updated regularly.
We have a simple application process and ask applicants to send brief reports at the end of each grant year.
We are clear with our eligibility criteria, and we explain the amount of funding available and make guidance as clear as possible. Here are a few areas we are looking to work on:
– Updating our back office system
– Reviewing our website navigation
– Hosting more Q&A sessions for larger funds
We have a simple standard application form which is streamlined, and only asks the questions we need for decision-making. Some areas we are investigating are:
– Consulting with organisations more thoroughly about their views on our application form
We have processes in place to reduce and mitigate risk, and are flexible with smaller organisations and the need for formal policies, and help them to develop great governance. We have recently opened a “microgrant” offer which will allow groups forming to receive funding to develop their governance from scratch or pilot a wholly new activity.
In grants for individuals experiencing hardship we work quickly to meet the local need of people. In our funding to organisations we try to provide a quick turnaround in decision-making. We are quick to respond to queries over the phone and via email.
We are clear with messaging on our webpage and have trialled using 360 Giving for some funds. We provide feedback to organisations about why they may not have been successful in a grant programme. We list exclusions on our fund criteria. Areas we have noted actions include:
– To increase our use of 360 Giving
– To publish more information around success rates
– To prompt and remind decision-making panels about best practice
We have generally quite restricted funding, due to our donors and fundholders. However, we strive to be as flexible as possible, within our constraints. Here are a few actions we are working towards:
– We will look at flexibility in terms of accessibility in application as well as grants
– We work will work with our decision-making panels, and donors, to champion unrestrictive giving
We aim to be intentional with our coms, we keep all of our different stakeholders updated in different ways to meet their individual needs. We are clear with organisations in our contact with them, particularly if we are seeking further information to support an application.
We always aim to be proportionate! We use customised forms where possible, so that questions asked are related to the size of the grant. We recognise that the monitoring side of our grantmaking is where we need some more investigation in setting expectations with donors and customising our asks to funded projects.
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 now in its second year of use, and has been transferred to a microsoft form after feed back from applicants on the previous pdf. After the initial assessment has been completed, I go back with any questions to help fully understand the ask/project/aims, this is always tailored but a recent review showed that applicants who made contact for a discussion prior to applying were more likely to be successful than those who did not.
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). Its difficult to find a one size fits all form, which is why having a chat with applicants before they apply can make such a difference, as they can be guided on aspects of the application that it may be helpful to focus on etc.
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 (usually 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, all applicants are advised of the decision within a few days of the committee meeting and the key meeting dates are shownon our website.
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 offered useful and honest feedback to all applicants and don’t prevent second applications from being submitted in the same financial year.
We encourage revised applications (following a discussion) to ensure that applicants get the best shot at our funding. 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.
Our website, direct contact options, feedback and grant decision comms all evidence that we communicate with purpose.
We don’t ask for lots of onerous reporting, we keep it simple and grantees can choose to simply report at the end of the project or year, or they can provide some short update reports if that is easier for them. At the end of the day we are a small funder ourselves, 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 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 have rewritten our application packs, giving additional clarity about how and when decisions are made, and what the grant making criteria are. We also offer opportunities for applicants to ask questions throughout the process.
– If we do an open application round in future, we will include a comprehensive eligibility quiz to ensure those who we would not fund do not complete a full application.
– We have rewritten our application packs, reducing the number of questions and introducing a word limit to ensure applicants understand how much we need to know.
– We are flexible in how applications are made. We have provided core questions, and allow applicants to respond in whatever format they wish, to allow for simple Word answers or more visual presentations.
– We have communicated in a timely manner with existing grantees to let them know if and when their funding will be extended, to support their budget planning.
– We are conducting a full risk review, so we ourselves better understand where we are prepared to accept risk. We will then communicate this to our partners.
– We have been clear to partners that when we ask about ongoing sustainability, they can seek specific funding from us to support this (e.g. enhancing fundraising resource).
– We have launched a new additional fund for existing grantees to support campaigning and advocacy work. This is open year-round, and for smaller grants we will make a decision within four weeks.
– We have increased the diversity of our Board, meaning we have a broader variety of views in grant-making.
– We are a corporate foundation, and seek to involve company staff in grant-making where appropriate to ensure a wider variety of views.
– We conduct an annual grantee survey. We had feedback about our impact monitoring, and are working to make updates based on what we have heard.
– We do not currently grant unrestricted funding, but the Board have committed to explore this and decide if we can be more flexible within the year.
– We proactively offered to cover additional NI costs associated with existing grants.
– We have increased grant amounts when renewing with existing partners to cover the increased costs of operation.
– We have had open and honest conversations with grantees whose grants are coming to an end this year, being clear about when decisions will be made about future funding and what they can expect from us.
– We are reviewing the reporting process in light of feedback from our most recent grantee survey.
We have a dedicated page on our website which clearly states the application process. We encourage all applicants to take our eligibility quiz first which takes 1 minute to complete. If successful, applicants are then invited to apply. If they aren’t sure at that stage, they can book a free 15 minute call with the Founder to discuss more.
Our application form was designed and tested with charities who meet our minimum requirements. The trustees then updated the form based on feedback before piloting it with our first charity partner, who completed the full process. To make the form clear and user-friendly, we provide word count guidance and include tick boxes to keep it as engaging and as easy to complete as possible.
We support fledgling charitable organisations under the age of two years old when they first become our charity partners. We acknowledge the risks at their early stage development but our ‘more than money’ model goes beyond funding by providing 8 months of tailored wraparound support to help them build strong foundations for sustainable growth. Our grant-making model enables partners to reapply every other year, enabling us to grow alongside them — Year 1: Best Practice, Year 2: Scaling Up, and Year 3: Sustaining.
We are a small charitable foundation, and have one funding round each year. We clearly promote the opportunity with signposting to our eligibility quiz and application page for more information. In response to previous charity partner feedback, we changed our opening and closing dates to avoid year-end application overload. This year, our funding round will run from mid-September to early November, providing charities a more manageable timeframe. Our new charity partners are onboarded in January and, again, we consulted with charities to ensure our timeline best supports their needs.
We have a clear two-stage selection process. Applicants who do not pass Stage 1 receive written feedback, typically because they do not meet our minimum criteria — despite the availability of our eligibility quiz, some applicants skip straight to the form. Charities that reach Stage 2 but are not selected as partners receive more detailed feedback, as the reasons tend to be more in-depth.
We also encourage open communication throughout the year by responding to enquiries, directing applicants to our eligibility quiz, and offering 15-minute informal chats with the founder. This helps ensure honest, factual feedback and allows us to guide charities on whether they should apply.
We partner with charities by providing both funding and wraparound support to build their capacity and make our help as meaningful as possible. We trust our partners to decide where funding is most needed, adopting a coaching approach to empower them as leaders. We take the time to understand their strengths, both as individuals and at an organisational level, using these insights to identify key areas for development.Through our network of Skill-Sharers, we offer learning opportunities and insights into where improvements could also make them more efficient and effective.
Our three-stage grant-making model encourages partners to reapply every other year, enabling us to support them as they grow.
We establish clear expectations for our partnership from the outset, ensuring that time commitments are realistic and well understood. We schedule an onboarding session with each charity partner where we review our partnership agreement, and outline our mutual commitments, expectations, objectives, and timelines. The agreement is discussed and agreed upon, ensuring clarity around both the financial and tailored support we provide.
We also provide regular supportive check-ins with the founder throughout the year and our approach is described as refreshing, clear, and genuine.
Due to our close working relationship with partners, we conduct evaluations both in writing and in person. We send a form that includes a mix of scaled questions (out of 10) to collect quantitative data and an invitation to write a case study, with prompts and word count guidelines to help us with qualitative data. The user-friendly form encourages reflection on achievements and helps us assess impact clearly. Partners tell us it takes 20-40 minutes to complete.
The in-person final review is more of an informal discussion, allowing us to gather insights on areas for improvement for the following year. It also provides them with a space to reflect on their achievements and discuss their next steps. Feedback suggests that this combination of written and in-person evaluations works well.
We communicate clearly on the home and contact page of our website that we are invitation-only and not to send grant-seeking enquiries.
We are clear with current and potential grantees about what we need from them and why we want to know it. We do not ask for information that is publicly available and we do not ask grantees to write up proposals in a specific format or word count.
Our funding is based on relationships and approached in a spirit of partnership that is built over time. 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 so that both sides can understand any the risks and challenges and maximise the opportunities for learning. All organisations go through challenging periods 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 have no set timescales and simply do our best to make decisions and communicate with grantees as quickly as possible.
We do not take applications. We publish our grants on 360Giving.
We give unrestricted funding where appropriate and are always willing to be flexible.
We are a relational funder and that means that we and our partners need to invest time in building the relationships. We hope that, rather than being seen as a burden, that investment of time leads to positive outcomes. For example we are better able to support organisations if we understand the challenges they face and the contexts in which they are operating, and a meeting with a grant manager can often lead to a useful introduction or to additional professional development support. When a grant closes, we give as much notice as possible, and bridging support where appropriate, so that the organisation can plan for the future and we may waive the option of a final report.
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. We are happy to accept joint reporting with other funders or verbal update if a grantee is under pressure. Reporting also drives the process of renewing the grant – grantees are not asked to reapply when their grant finishes, instead the report provides a trigger for a conversation about successes, challenges and future priorities.
We have considered ways to condense timeline for applications. We meet all applicants and are clear about timelines. We offer appointments and opportunity to chat pre-application and are encouraging people to speak to us early about process. As an innovative fund with very few restrictions on what we can consider, there will always be times when applicants have spent time and ultimately are unsuccessful and we do our very best to communicate this at all stages.
We review our application forms regularly and remove any questions that do not add to assessment. We have removed questions that we can obtain the answers for during our own checks and assessment. We edit application to suit type and size of organisation we are dealing with so that not all applicants have to answer all questions if not of specific relevance.
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 communicate timelines and process at all stages from initial call to decision point and always consider what we can do to condense timelines for applicants.
We publish details of all awards made along with number of unsuccessful applications. We will always provide feedback to applicants and during this year we will publish regular blogs and tip sheets sharing common reasons for declines.
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 will offer potential applicants the opportunity to speak to us in a variety of ways and in a variety of accessible settings. We will communicate timelines and process and give prompt feedback and we will continue engaging in this way throughout their journey with us.
We consider risk level and due diligence and consider how we can be more proportionate in evidence needed, reporting requirements etc. We will consider ways to capture outcomes and outputs without burdening the applicant.
We will only ask questions that are necessary to make a funding decision and review this annually.
We will make it clear what our criteria is 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, we will look at how more of our awards could be multi-year.
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.
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 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. We will be available to support applicants during application process 1:1. We will use learning from last 2 funding rounds to make improvements that aim to save future applicants’ time. We will monitor the percentage of organisations we turn down (and why) to make adjustments to our funding criteria if there are improvements to be made. 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.
As we open Round 3 of our Open Fund, we will only ask questions during application related to what information we need to make funding decisions. We will continue to capture learning from visits, sharing our key learning questions ahead of time, and not ask funded Partners to complete monitoring forms.
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. Each year we review the process for triggering the renewal of our multi-year grants to increase transparency with funded partners so it is clearer how we approach this and what we’ll do if there’s a concern. Each year, we aim to be clearer about what our compliance looks like, while retaining our trust-based approach. We’ll embed learning in 2025 from our 2024 renewal process that included anonymised feedback.
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 timetable on our website that sets out what decisions are made and when, and let applicants know the outcome at each stage. We are opening a new funding round in 2025 and challenge ourselves to shorten the timescale within confines of our small size. We have a 3 stage application process and give feedback to those who are unsuccessful within a week of each stage. The Board reflects on learning 3 times a year and will turn that learning into action where it can (ie: last year awarded COL grants; awarded additional year 4 grant to current partners).
We give written, personalised feedback to all unsuccessful applicants within a week of each application stage, and also offer a phone call; as we open Round 3 fund in 2025, we have looked at why some applicants didn’t meet minimum stated criteria in prior rounds 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 award unrestricted multi-year grants to applicants to our Open Fund.
In Stage 3 of the application process (the visit), we discuss our approach to the partnership as an open & trusting funder, clarify what ‘unrestricted funding’ looks like and our approach to learning and renewals. We share Peter Minet’s own learning questions for the year that we raise at the two annual visits (ie: what more funders can do; feedback on Peter Minet), making it clear that preparation is not required for these visits.
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 1) understanding what the organisation, as a whole, has undertaken over the year – not specific activities 2) their thoughts on our learning questions including their feedback on us as a funder & what more funders can do. 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 have a Learning Framework shared with partners (and on our website) to add consistency to our relationships with funded partners, including more clarity on compliance and the renewal process.
We will review our funding guidelines and eligibility quiz annually in light of feedback and funding decisions to make them as clear as possible.
We operate a two-stage application process with our stage one focused on determining good fit with our programmes. Only projects with a strong chance of being successful will be invited to complete a full application.
We publish our application forms on our website to help applicants make informed decisions about whether they wish to apply.
We update our frequently asked questions page so information on common questions is readily available.
We attend ‘meet the funders’ and other sector-specific meetings where relevant to talk about our funding priorities, and answer questions as well as run our own webinars.
Contact details for all team members are published on our website, and we respond to pre-application enquiries.
We review the information that we ask for annually so that we only ask for information that we actively use in assessing applications and ensure that the level of information required is proportionate to the size and type of grant.
We ask charities to test our updated application forms and provide feedback on their clarity, relevance of questions, length of forms.
For due diligence work we access accounts and annual reports published on the websites of the Charity Commission, Companies House, applicant’s website and only seek further information where that is not available/up to date.
We are flexible when grantees have to change the timescale of their work.
We accept the risk that comes with funding new and very small charities (i.e. under £100k turnover) with limited resources
We respond to all stage one applications within four weeks.
We make decisions on small grants (£5,000 or less) within 4 weeks of receiving an application.
We publish assessment timetables for our quarterly Board meetings on our website.
We let applicants know the meeting at which their application is being considered. If there is a change, we will discuss this with the applicant.
We give tailored feedback to unsuccessful applicants.
We publish our success rates in our annual report and on our website for both stage one and stage two.
We publish our grants data on 360 Giving.
We publish the grants awarded on our website.
We state how many awards are typically made each year/at each meeting.
We manage expectations and do not encourage re-applications for the same project.
We provide funding for core operating costs under our social change grants programme.
We do not give unrestricted funding, but we are flexible about budget changes to deliver the agreed outcomes.
We are open to discussions with grantees about changes to delivery.
We will review our grant holder information to make it as helpful as possible in light of feedback and common issues.
For our Young Women in Mind programme, we issue a fact sheet outlining our evaluation expectations and timelines at the point of grant award as well as a summarised version in our application guidelines.
On our Young Women in Mind programme, we fund regular facilitated Community of Practice meetings for grantees to share learning, challenges and expertise. They also use this platform to provide feedback to us on the programmes they are part of and suggestions for improvement, which help us better understand the needs of our grantees.
We will review our monitoring information to make sure that it is proportionate to the size of the grant.
On our preservation and conservation programme, we accept reports in a variety of formats and allow grantees to use existing reports prepared for other funders.
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.
All of our communications – applications, monitoring, 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. Published criteria and exclusions are transparent, relevant and up to date.
We only collect information that we need to make funding decisions; we test our application forms rigorously to make sure our questions are clear and appropriate. 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 encourage good practice for content and clarity of application forms, assessments and for making recommendations. We continue to seek feedback and remove any potential barriers that impede the application progress.
We are realistic about risk and try to ensure that decisions around funding are clear and proportionate to the size of the grant and to the size of the organisation. We remain committed to provide a light touch approach to our grant making, while making sure that are groups are given support where needed to make sound applications. We recognise that the sustainability or financial stability of many organisations may be precarious, 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.
All of our available programmes are published on our website with clear deadlines for applications. We will respond promptly to applicant queries and wherever possible will aim to give a decision within six weeks for our main grant programmes, and up to two weeks for individuals and for grants less than £2,000.
We will continue to provide feedback on the majority of funding programmes . and to publish annual impact reports that include application and grant analysis. We will continue to undertake 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 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.
The trustees now review the grant eligibility criteria on a regular basis and are currently rewriting information for our website to make this clear and transparent to avoid wasting charities time.
Our feedback requirements will also be shown clearly on our website and our application forms.
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 up-to-date.
For those charities that meet our criteria we 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.
Since the Foundation started, we have refined and streamlined our grant application form. It is two sides of A4 and collects the minimum amount of information required for a funding decision and including the production of data for 360 Giving.
Only when an application has been successful do we request bank details.
Our 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 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.
Our preferred option now is to give unrestricted funding. When 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.
We do not require detailed oversight of a charities work. They are the experts on the front line, and we are happy to let them decide how the funds can best be used.
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 can work together to reach a solution.
We have increased our trustee meetings from two to three a year to improve our speed of response for grant-making decisions. We also have available an email decision making process (developed during lockdown) to enable rapid decision-making when required.
We aim to notify applicants within a couple of days of our decision, and this is followed up by the issue of funds by bank transfer within a couple of weeks.
We have phased out the use of cheques to reduce paperwork for both ourselves and our beneficiaries.
For those who contact us but do not meet our eligibility criteria we will always respond by email or telephone and explain the reason for their ineligibility. In addition, where possible, we will provide some pointers to potential funding.
Our work with applicants before the submission of an application results in a high success rate. Our website will show a general idea of the success rate but without resorting to percentages which may encourage applicants to be over-optimistic.
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.
Details of all our grant awards are made available online through 360 Giving Although a general location (County, City etc) is included, for privacy, we do not provide postcodes as many of our grantees are small and operate from their personal home addresses.
The 360 Giving data is updated after each trustee meetings.
We do not believe that it is for us to dictate what a charity should be doing. As previously mentioned, we now look on all applications as opportunities for unrestricted funding. We have removed the word “project” from all our documentation to emphasize that we want to support all aspects of a charity’s work.
Our initiative to provide multi-year funding 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 will continue to look for further options for extend this initiative in the future.
All eligible unsolicited applications are contacted by telephone to introduce ourselves and outline the application process. We will explain what we require and the relevant timescales. We will have a conversation about what the charity does and how it meets our objectives. We also take this opportunity to signpost other resources which the applicant might find useful.
Only if the applicant is happy at this point will we issue a Grant Application Form. Our 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.
Our reporting requirements are regularly reviewed by the trustees. The replacement of “monitoring” with “feedback” was a significant step in making it a two-way process.
These feedback requirements are now clearly shown on our “Notes for Applicants” attached to our application form, and our website.
We encourage our grantees to provide feedback with our Grant Feedback Form (2 sides of A4), but we are very happy to receive reports prepared for other funders. Photos and quotes from beneficiaries are also very welcome.
We make it clear that this feedback will be read by our trustees and enable them to assess the benefits of the grant and better inform them in making future funding decisions. The feedback will be used in both our Annual Report and our regular newsletters to promote our charity beneficiaries and the work of our Foundation.
– 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.
– Where possible, we will include success rates and the expected number of grants we’ll be able to award on our grant programme webpages.
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 encourage applicants to consider the full cost of the work they seek a grant towards, and support full cost recovery.
– We are actively discussing risk and the IVAR principles with our various fundholders.
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 have increased the threshold for the size of grants that require approval by trustees. This helps us get our decisions to grant applicants more quickly.
– 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 publish information on grants we’ve awarded each month on our website and share our grants awarded data with 360 Giving.
– Where possible, we will include success rates and the expected number of grants we’ll be able to award on our grant programme webpages.
– We have reviewed our Help and Guidance webpage and will be including typical reasons for why we reject applications.
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 updated our standard communications to applicants after they have submitted their applications so it explains what happens next.
– We have updated our grant conditions to become a ‘Funding Agreement’ that includes what grantees can expect from us too
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 website provides detailed information on our funding priorities and explicitly outlines what we do not fund. Key criteria and how applications are assessed are clearly listed, along with a comprehensive FAQ section covering eligibility, the application process, and the application form. We strongly encourage potential applicants who are new to us to contact a member of the Grants Team prior to applying to determine whether it is suitable to proceed. We also have an Eligibility Quiz on our website, which indicates whether an applicant can access our funding, and, if so, what Funding Stream is most appropriate. Online applications are accompanied by a guidance document, which gives guidance for each question, and, where necessary, explains why we need certain information. Our FAQs include details of when grant awards are paid. All this information is accessible from one page on our website.
Over the past 12 months (as at March 2025), we have revised our application process, removing irrelevant questions and adding new, more useful ones. Each application form is available in a downloadable Word format, allowing applicants to collaborate with their senior management teams before transferring their responses to the online form. To streamline the process, all questions have reasonable word limits, ensuring applicants do not need to spend excessive time providing lengthy answers. Our application questions link clearly to our grant assessment criteria.
We clearly define what risk looks like to us and take steps to help organisations understand and manage it. For instance, we provide a Safeguarding Policy Checklist on our website, which partners can use to strengthen their own policies. Additionally, we maintain an in-house risk register that is regularly monitored to identify and manage our share of risks, particularly in relation to high-risk grants and grant management. Our application forms give applicants the opportunity to explain how they manage and mitigate their own risks. One of our grant priorities is to “strengthen the local voluntary and community sector”. As part of this priority, we offer developmental support to charity leaders in our area of benefit through initiatives like our Future Leaders Programme. One new approach to funding is our Partnerships grants stream through which we recently launched a programme called Narrowing the Gap addressing inequalities in education. Our trustees agreed to take risks with the way the funding is negotiated and awarded with our partners.
We provide clear information on application deadlines, Grant Committee meeting dates, and the timelines for when applicants can expect to receive a decision on their application. Additionally, we are committed to notifying applicants of the outcome within five working days following the Grants Committee meeting.
We offer structured and transparent feedback to unsuccessful applicants and provide the option for more detailed feedback via a phone call. Annually, we publish all our grant data through 360Giving and report success rates in our annual report and in our Grant FAQs. Recently, we launched a DEI Strategy, facilitated by an external consultancy, through which we are committed to establishing an advisory board and, over time, are committed to diversifying our Board of Trustees. Additionally, we invite organisations to share their feedback through annual monitoring and evaluation forms, and we are investigating joining Grants Advisor to enhance our feedback processes.
Regular visits to our funded partners take place from our grants team, CEO and trustees. At these meetings we encourage open feedback from our partners to inform our work.
We offer three-year flexible Core Grants to organisations that have successfully delivered our grants for two or more years, are based in the London Borough of Richmond, and usually have an annual turnover of less than £1 million. These grants can be used to cover organisational overheads and core costs. Our Grants Team remains accessible to partners to discuss any unexpected changes or challenges, providing support where possible. During the annual monitoring and evaluation process, organisations also have the opportunity to adjust the organisational goals submitted with their initial application.
Each partner is assigned a dedicated point of contact within the Grants Team who manages their grant. Successful applicants receive a terms and conditions document outlining the grant requirements. We are also working towards formulising the number of meetings we have with our partners during the grant period and will commit to informing them in advance about the structure and schedule of these meetings.
We recently launched our new brand including a refreshed website and communication channels. This is underpinned by a new communications strategy. Our strategy sets out our approach and our strategic goals include:
– Effective communications – inspiring and educational communications
– Fostering community partnerships
– Sharing knowledge through our communications channels
– Being reactive and responsive
We aim to support our funded partners and facilitate opportunities for them to share learnings with their peers – for example, hosting panel sessions on lived experience, and on managing effective volunteer relationships. Our FAQs include details of our monitoring requirements together with an example Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Form.
Our FAQs include details of our monitoring requirements together with an example Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Form. We ask for a written report at the end of a Gateway Grant or once per year (if a multi year grant). We consulted a sample of our funded partners when we recently reviewed the questions on the M&E Form and are continuing to ask for feedback since roll out of a new version of the forms in November 2024. We use the M&E Forms to inform the trustees on our Grant Committee of the progress of our funded partners, to identify areas where the Charity can support (for example, make links to other relevant organisations), to understand impact of our funding and to manage risk.
– 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 are strengthening how we communicate our eligibility criteria.
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.
Our standardised application form means applicants can easily update information from one round to the next, rather than re-entering it.
We only ask for information we will use in assessment.
We are committed to funding small grassroots organisations.
The research and evidence we produce strives to inspire greater understanding of the benefits of investing in women’s and girls’ organisations and challenge underlying assumptions around risk which can undermine such investment.
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 ensure representatives from 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.
At The Scar Free Foundation, we recognise that applicants’ time is a valuable resource. We are working towards publishing clearer guidance on our funding priorities and areas of research interest, including the conditions and outcomes we aim to address through our work in scar prevention, wound healing, and trauma recovery.
We are developing a new prospectus-style case for support to provide potential partners and funders with a transparent overview of our ambitions, impact to date, and funding needs – distinguishing between core infrastructure, programme costs, and unrestricted investment opportunities.
In our early-stage conversations with prospective applicants, we are also committed to an open dialogue about fit and eligibility. As part of our ongoing review, we will explore publishing more detailed criteria and FAQs to reduce unnecessary applications and ensure our communications reflect the realities of what we can fund.
Our approach to funding decisions is grounded in evidence, but we are committed to keeping requirements proportionate to the size and scope of the grant. We only ask for information that directly informs our funding decisions – such as scientific merit, alignment with our strategic objectives, and potential impact on people affected by scarring.
We are currently reviewing our application and assessment processes for both research and non-research funding, with the aim of reducing duplication and clarifying expectations at each stage. We aim to simplify forms and ensure questions are
non-repetitive, focused, and relevant to the scale of the funding sought.
As we grow our non-research fundraising partnerships (e.g. trusts, corporates, and major donors), we are developing a structured but light-touch expression of interest process to better gauge alignment and avoid asking applicants to invest time prematurely.
As a medical research funder, we acknowledge that risk is inherent in innovation and scientific progress. We are committed to a realistic and transparent approach to risk – recognising that not every project will produce definitive results, but each contributes to building the evidence base in scar prevention and care.
We do not expect applicants to have all the answers in advance. Instead, we assess risk in the context of scientific rigour, track record, and feasibility, while also considering our own tolerance for long-term and translational impact.
Our due diligence processes are proportionate, especially when working with smaller institutions or voluntary sector partners. We are reviewing how we communicate our approach to financial risk, governance, and monitoring, and aim to publish clearer guidance on how we balance assurance with trust in the organisations we support.
As we grow our non-research partnerships, we will apply the same principles — accepting that innovation, partnership-building, and core infrastructure funding require flexibility and a balanced approach to risk-sharing.
We recognise that timely funding decisions are crucial for applicants planning research programmes, sustaining partnerships, or responding to urgent need — especially in areas affected by conflict, trauma, or health inequalities.
We are currently reviewing our internal processes to streamline decision-making while maintaining robust governance. We aim to shorten turnaround times for funding decisions and will begin publishing expected timeframes for research calls and partnership enquiries.
For small-scale or time-sensitive opportunities — such as strategic collaborations, corporate partnerships, or early-stage scoping work — we commit to acting more quickly, often within four to six weeks. We also strive to keep applicants informed if timelines shift, ensuring transparency and fairness throughout.
As part of our ambition to expand unrestricted and responsive funding, we are developing mechanisms to respond flexibly and swiftly to emerging opportunities without unnecessary delay.
We are committed to transparency in our funding decisions. We recognise that constructive feedback is valuable to applicants, whether successful or not, and we aim to share tailored feedback wherever possible — particularly at later stages of application or partnership development.
For research funding calls, we provide clear peer review criteria and feedback from our Research Council or Scientific Advisory Groups. As we grow our fundraising and partnership portfolio, we will also develop a simple framework for giving consistent, helpful feedback to unsuccessful applicants or prospective funders whose interests may not align with our current priorities.
We are beginning to collect and analyse success rates across different funding streams, and we will explore publishing summary data annually. We will also aim to clarify common reasons for rejection to help applicants make informed decisions about whether and when to apply.
Transparency builds trust, and we see this commitment as essential to forming long-term, values-aligned relationships with both research partners and funders.
As a specialist funder focused on medical research into scarring, trauma, and wound healing, our funding is often strategically directed. However, we are committed to building flexibility into how that funding is used — whether through broad thematic grants or by covering a blend of project, core, and strategic costs within awards.
We do not tightly prescribe activity plans and trust our research partners to adjust timelines, staffing, and resource allocation as needed. Our funding agreements explicitly allow for reasonable adjustments in response to external circumstances, such as delays in recruitment or shifts in clinical priorities.
Beyond research, we are actively working to increase the proportion of unrestricted and flexible funding through trusts, foundations, and major donors. This will allow us to strengthen core infrastructure, build capacity, and respond swiftly to opportunities that fall outside traditional project models.
In our future fundraising, we will prioritise funder education about the impact of unrestricted investment in driving research breakthroughs and system-level change.
We strive to build relationships that are open, respectful, and purposeful from the outset. For research partnerships, we are clear about expectations, time commitments, and reporting requirements from the initial application stage. We ensure that every funded project has a named contact at the Foundation and a shared understanding of how we will stay in touch throughout the grant period.
In our fundraising partnerships, we take the same approach — recognising that effective collaboration depends on trust, clear communication, and mutual benefit. We work with each supporter or funder to agree the most appropriate level of engagement and reporting, and we are careful not to overburden partners with unnecessary updates or admin.
As our team grows, we are developing a relationship management framework to ensure that all of our contacts — whether researchers, donors, or collaborators — experience consistent, meaningful communication that adds value and reflects our shared mission to create a scar free future.
We are committed to making our reporting requirements proportionate, purposeful, and aligned with the scale and nature of our funding. For research grants, we focus on outcomes, learning, and contribution to the broader evidence base. We provide clear guidance upfront and avoid asking for information that isn’t essential or that duplicates existing reporting processes.
We understand that time spent on reporting is time taken from delivery. That’s why we are working to ensure that our monitoring and reporting processes are light-touch and flexible, particularly for smaller or strategic grants. We are also exploring more dialogue-based reporting, such as informal check-ins or shared learning conversations, to replace or complement formal written reports where appropriate.
In the year ahead, we will pilot a new reporting framework — developed in collaboration with our partners — that ensures accountability while enabling organisations to focus on impact rather than administration.
OUR KEY ACTIONS FOR 2025 ARE:
We will undertake an accessibility audit of the website and implement the findings.
We will review the application form for our grants against other grant makers making similar sized grants to ensure that the time taken is proportionate to the grant size.
We will make more three year, unrestricted grants.
OUR KEY ACTIONS FOR 2025 ARE:
We will review the information we ask for as part of the application process to ensure it is fully relevant to our decision making process and we do not duplicate questions.
We will further develop our pre-application phone calls to ensure these are as helpful as possible to both the potential applicant and the information we need as part of our decision making processes.
OUR TWO KEY ACTIONS FOR 2025 ARE:
We will increase the number of multi-year, unrestricted grants that we offer by introducing a grants programme that sits between our SMALL GRANTS PROGRAMME and our STRATEGIC core grants programme.
OUR KEY ACTIONS FOR 2025 ARE:
We will ensure we always stick to the published timescales on our website.
OUR KEY ACTIONS FOR 2025 ARE:
We will make it compulsory for trustees to give a reason for rejecting an applications and we will share these reasons with unsuccessful applicants.
We will make better use of 360 Giving (which we already publish to) and use their WIDGETS on our website to make this data more accessible and readily available to potential applicants.
OUR KEY ACTIONS FOR 2025 ARE:
We will ensure that our key message of flexibility is well communicated throughout the grants process.
We will increase the number of unrestricted grants we make.
OUR KEY ACTIONS FOR 2025 ARE:
We will further develop the robustness of all communication throughout the application process to ensure applicants have a clear idea of the level of competition / success ratios.
We will undertake an accessibility audit of the website and implement the findings.
We will ensure that applicants with a lower chance of success are informed of this early in the process (through our phone calls).
We will strive to ensure, through such communication, that our success ration always remains above 1 in 4.
OUR KEY ACTIONS FOR 2025 ARE:
We will review the application form for our grants against other grant makers making similar sized grants to ensure that the time taken is proportionate to the grant size.
We will review the information we ask for as part of the application process to ensure it is fully relevant to our decision making process and we do not duplicate questions.
We will use light touch monitoring / feedback after year one and year two of our three year grants and will accept generic reports, rather than asking for a bespoke report.
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.
– We update the Trust’s website a few times a year to ensure criteria and funding priorities are very clear. Also recently added success rates to website.
– Operate a two-stage application process:
1. Grant seeker makes initial contact by email or phone and tells Trust Manager briefly about their organisation, what they need funding for and their current financial status. Trust Manager will give an immediate response about whether or not a charity should take the time to write and submit an application having carried out top-line desk top research and may ask some simple questions.
2. If grant seeker meets criteria and Trust Manager thinks the trustees will look favourably on an application, the Trust Manager will organise an in person visit or Zoom meeting if a new applicant to the Trust and also if it has been a few years since the charity and Trust liaised. The Trust Manager sends the applicant the application form before the meeting which can be returned after the meeting. During the meeting the Trust Manager will discuss what the charity most needs funding for, a guide on how much to ask for and other key tips on making their application as strong as possible.
We have used the Yorkshire Common Application Form (YCAF) for the last two and a half years and our Trust Manager is part of the Yorkshire Funders’ Aligned Working Network which meets twice a year and make updates to the YCAF based on applicants and internal assessors’ feedback. The Trust has removed a few optional YCAF questions which some other funders ask to ensure the application form is not too long and arduous to complete. With the meetings and the YCAF, the Trust Manager does not have to go back to most applicants with more questions.
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 few 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 now give brief, specific feedback on each Outcomes Form received, rather than just emailing to say thank you and tell the charity that the report will be circulated to all the trustees that month so that they know we are actually doing something with the report and we appreciate the time spent on it. Charities can return their annual report or another report for another funder (which is applicable) if they do not wish to complete the Trust’s outcomes form.
We continue to make flexible grants which can be for core, project, capital or a combination of costs. It’s vital that our grants are spent on what the charities need support for most and the Trust Manager always has a conversation about this if the applicant isn’t sure.
In 2024, we started to give out a few multi-year grants and this will be ramped up for 2025 and beyond.
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 are also aiming to establish a new grant management system in 2025 with a portal for applicants so that information can be communicated through the portal as well as via emails and on the Trust’s website.
Continue to encourage grant holders to complete the simple Grant Outcomes Form which states the suggested time frame for return. With the new grant management system, the Trust will send timely reminders for the Outcomes Form so that the grant holders don’t have to remember the date.
– Our funding priorities, including exclusions, are published on our website and regularly-reviewed.
– We have recently added a map on our website to indicate geographic eligibility, as we are a place-based funder.
– Feedback indicates whether or not an unsuccessful applicant would be considered again in future.
– We are collecting data on success rates, including for new applicants, and will publish it in our annual report from 2025.
– We only ask for information we use during the assessment process. Our form is relatively short and the only uploads we ask for are a safeguarding policy, accounts (if not published at the Charity Commission) and governing document (for non-charities).
– In the last year we launched an online application form, with best practice considerations such as a downloadable Word version, a password-less login, ability to see all questions in advance, ability to copy and paste, no restrictive word limits etc.
– We created a feedback form for applicants but take-up is low. We will consider how to get more feedback on our application process in 2025.
– The board have outlined our ideal allocation of funding between core funding, project funding and development funding and we are moving gradually towards this.
– We are considering how we can minimise requirements and due diligence on our small grant applicants, recognising the greater degree of risk that comes with funding smaller organisations, unconstituted groups and pilot projects.
– We provide clear timelines to applicants for main grants, with deadlines on the same dates every year. We state when applicants can expect to hear back from us with a decision and when they can expect to receive their grant.
– We now publish deadlines for our small grants programme, which previously operated on a rolling basis.
– We now share data on all grants made above £5,000 in our accounts.
– We now take time in grants meetings to agree on what feedback will be given to a unsuccessful applicant.
– We are exploring data sharing via 360Giving in line with a grant-making systems transition.
– In practice, much of our funding is to organisational core costs. We are piloting a core funding process to allow funded organisations to determine their spending priorities more flexibly, with a different analysis framework and reporting requirements.
– We will evaluate the impact of the core funding process pilot and consider how to open it out more widely in 2025.
– We will acknowledge all applications and let applicants know which meeting their application is going to.
– We visit as many applicants as we can to see the work they do, and prioritise this where the organisation may have less knowledge of how to apply for grants or may not communicate best in writing.
– We conduct light touch monitoring and have only a short evaluation form, to be submitted at the end of the grant.
– We offer grantees the opportunity to use another reporting format but take-up is limited; we will consider why this is in 2025.
– In 2025, 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 pratice).
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, we review our guidelines and processes, 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 and/or Programme 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.
• We will implement the most relevant application process, creating one or more stages dependent on the nature and size of the grant. This could include e.g. an eligibility check, Expression of Interest, etc. It could also include a Post Award form, with the applicant completing a slimmed-down application form, and providing additional pieces of information once successful.
• We will accept written/audio /video applications, and on request, application by interview or in another language. Dependent on the urgency (e.g., the race riots) and size of the grant, for current grantees only, information may be requested by email.
• 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), and where appropriate and relevant co-produce application processes.
• Where appropriate and relevant, we will co-design funding rounds
• At the end of a funding round, we will routinely ask for feedback from the grantees on their experience of the funding round and application process.
• We will, where appropriate and depending on the nature of the grant, take responsibility for compiling information on applicants from publicly held records (e.g., accounts from the Charity Commission). Otherwise, applicants will be asked to submit relevant documents such as governance documents, latest accounts, safeguarding policy etc.
• 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 simplify the application process for existing grantees who apply for additional funding, using information, where appropriate, from earlier applications (e.g., Uplift grants, race riot funding).
• 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 discuss ‘risk’ concerns openly with applicants during the 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 a minimum of six months’ funding in advance (in some cases 12 months) and provide core versus project funding where relevant and appropriate, giving security and reducing risk.
• We will accept our share of risk by funding smaller grassroots organisations that are underfunded, where their demand is rising and where their finances are precarious, if it meets our objectives. Where possible and if resources allow, we will offer organisation development support to help those organisations meet our terms and conditions and access our funding.
• 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 appropriate, we will respond to external events quickly e.g., the race riots
• Where possible, we will provide specific reject reasons and areas to improve future applications individually in writing, and/or with a telephone call or online meeting (usually by request), as well as collating the most common reasons for unsuccessful applications in a single document.
• We will provide a review webinar for unsuccessful applicants, where appropriate.
• 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, and external funding if not already posted by the external funder.
• 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, providing that agreed objectives/outcomes can still be met.
• 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 dates, completion dates, timescales, and reporting when funding is solely through the Smallwood Trust.
• We jointly agree with the grantee expectations for the relationship, including reporting and payment schedules.
• If co-funding, we operate flexibly on format and timescales.
• 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 we aim to explain 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 6 months and on completion and support them to relate the impact of the funding.
• We will commission an external evaluator / learning partner to capture progress when the size and nature of the fund requires it.
• In most cases, 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. If required, assistance will be given to determine an adequate amount to cover this cost. Where appropriate, we will remove the burden of monitoring and evaluation through observational visits and impact recording.
• We will co-produce our monitoring and evaluation reports where appropriate and relevant.
We have clear criteria for organisations we can support and let them know in the first meeting if they could be a fit for our support. If we cannot support an organisation we outline reasons why including when and if they can re-approach.
We also outline the process for applying and ongoing monitoring.
This is an area we keep under review, taking feedback from applicants (including through an annual survey). We also review our data collection each year as part of an Annual Review, overseen by our Investment Committee to ensure the data we collect is proportional and used. In the first instance, we use published data and information, outside of that we only ask organisations to provide data and information that they already collect. Each applicant has a dedicated Investment Manager who works with them throughout the application process to ensure they understand how and why information is needed (on financials, impact, etc.) and so they can include any additional insight that might be of interest. They are also on hand to prepare any proposals or pitches.
The main assurance areas we look at are financial sustainability, social impact and governance and do not expect that organisations have all of the assurances that might be needed to fully manage these risks. Often this is where we can be of most help. Where certain assurance might be needed and is a gap, early on in the process we might resource the organisation, for example, through market research, financial modelling or strategy support. Outside of understanding the delivery model, we trust that the organisation is expert in the work they do.
Our focus is more on how open the organisation is to our support, so that we can make best use of our resources. In that respect we are guided by the CEO and management team.
We let organisations know in the first meeting whether they could be a fit for our support. We discuss timings up front so that the organisation has a clear view on when and how we could support.
We have a rolling application process, based on the timing and pace of the organisation seeking support. This means we can be flexible to their needs if something unexpected comes up (and they need to delay) it also allows the charity to plan ahead, for example if they are undergoing a large digital project or moving into a new area.
We have clear criteria for the organisations we support. If we cannot support an organisation, we outline reasons why including when and if they can re-approach. We also outline the process for applying and ongoing monitoring.
We back organisations for 3-5 year terms (or longer) to achieve their long term goals. During this time, we tailor support according to what the organisation needs. This includes resource for large strategic projects (e.g. digital transformation or funding new posts), as well as ‘on-call’ advice and support as needed. Projects and payment schedules can be rescoped, flexed or paused depending on the needs of the organisation. In exceptional circumstances we can also set up specific funds, for example, during Covid, we set up a dedicated fund to help organisations continue running critical services and provided PPE.
All our charity grantees have a dedicated SBT investment manager who supports them throughout the funding period. They also prepare any materials needed for our investment committee with the CEO and management team of the charity to minimise the burden. Our funding terms include a clear articulation of our commitment to the charity, bespoke to their needs, alongside expectations from the grantee. This includes how we will work together, as well as the support we commit to provide. Alongside an annual CEO survey, we regularly seek feedback from our grantees on what could be improved.
We jointly agree with the grantee on reporting. Information is collected quarterly using data the grantee already collects.
We are fortunate that our only criterion is that the grant must be used in support of older people (aged 55 and above) 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 a significant volume of multi-year grants is dependent on securing an almshouses re-development deal, which would contribute additional funds to the grants budget. We expect the almshouse to be completed and opened in late 2028.
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 (subject to available budget) for more than one year.
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 and from 2022 we have included case studies of initiatives funded on our website and in our Trustees Annual Report and Accounts, including photographs (with permissions) and website links.
We communicate clearly what funds are open for applications and when. We are clear about our funding requirements and exclusions which are readily available on our website and we encourage potential applicants to speak to us in advance with any questions they have. We are in the process of clarifying our priority areas (themes). We inform applicants as early as possible if their application does not meet our funding criteria. If an application is initially unsuccessful, where possible, we will look for alternative options without requiring a new application. Where an application is funded from more than one source, we will, where possible, only ask for one monitoring report. We like to visit funded organisations but will be respectful of their time. We are working towards using AI to reduce and simplify applications. We run regular ‘meet the funder’ sessions.
We will only ask for information we need to make decisions about applications. We are in the process of updating and simplifying our application and monitoring process and documentation. The application document and assessment will be proportionate to the value of the grant, clear and concise. For large funds, or those we anticipate will be very oversubscribed, we may use a two-stage process. We aim to promote and make our funding inclusive and accessible to all.
We encourage donors to consider funding outside of their comfort zone and accept a higher element of risk which we also extend to our own charitable funds. We are committed to increasing multi-year grants and core or unrestricted funding and to reaching out to new or small organisations that we have not previously funded. We are re-establishing a small grants programme with light-touch assessment and reporting. We partner with VCFSE support organisations who offer practical support for inexperienced grant seekers.
We give advance notice, publish and keep to our timelines where possible and encourage our donors to do the same. We will respond to queries in a timely and supportive manner. We work to make and clearly advise of decisions as quickly as possible. We will endeavour to respond to emergency situations and requests.
We will be transparent and responsive to any questions raised at any point in the process and be open to discussing changes to how grants are used and its timeline if circumstances change.
We always listen. We make our funders aware of and responsive to changing needs in our communities. We work to help funders understand challenges and recognise the need for changes in project delivery and timescales.
Our terms and conditions reflect a true partnership between us, the organisations we work with and our funders. We are clear about our role as supportive and informed enablers between organisations and our funders. We make ourselves available for and are always open for conversations, support and to giving grant advice.
Reporting expectations are outlined when the grant is given. We are revising all our reporting to make it proportionate, transparent and clearly impact focused. We provide ample notice and reminders when reports are due and are flexible where circumstances change. We will use simple tick boxes where possible.
At the end of each funding period, unsuccessful applicants are reviewed and we offer feedback to groups to help them to decide whether to apply again in future or what specifically they could do to improve their future chances of success. If there are eligibility questions, we will ensure we provide clear feedback so that groups don’t waste time applying again.
We also encourage groups to work with local infrastructure organisations who will review applications before they come to us.
We regularly review our eligibility criteria and have recently carried out a strategic review for the organisation, which was completed last year. With our new strategy, we have agreed to fund under four new funding priorities. These are: Tackling Poverty, Reaching Potential, Improving Health, and Acting on Climate. Guidance is available to help applicants consider whether their proposals are a good fit for the new funding priorities. We have also recently implemented a new eligibility quiz for our website to support applicants in better understanding our rules and exclusions: www.sussexcommunityfoundation.org
We also encourage applicants to speak to us to share their ideas before applying and regularly hold and attend ‘Meet the Funder’ style events to allow people to ask specific questions of us.
We regularly review our application and monitoring forms to ensure that they are fit for purpose, and we only ask questions that we need for the purpose of assessment and due diligence. We will continue to refine and develop the process and seek feedback from applicants on an annual basis.
We have just developed a new application form which was tested and shared with a range of partners before it was implemented. As a team, we strive for continuous improvement in our grant making and are open to new ideas and ways of working. To this end, we have recently established a new working group made up of experts in grant making and other sectors, who will be critiquing our application and assessment process.
We are willing to fund organisations even if their financial situation may be challenging. Our priority is to ensure that the organisations we fund are well-managed and that they have either a good track record of delivery or evidence that projects are well-researched and planned. We understand that the financial situation for many organisations may be precarious and take a pragmatic view when thinking about the future funding of projects and activities. We no longer ask questions about sustainability on our application form as that tended to be a difficult question for groups to answer, which is particularly true in the current funding climate.
Over the past few years we have demonstrated that we are able to act with urgency in our grant making. During Covid, we moved all our grant making to a fast track process, whereby organisations were asked to write very simple application forms and decisions were made in two to three weeks. Since then, we have responded to the cost-of-living crisis by running a specific appeal to bring in additional funding to address the most urgent needs in our communities. We have also run other emergency funding programmes and funded over 40 foodbanks last year to address some of these issues. As we move forward, our funding priorities are designed to help address the most urgent issues of our time.
We publish all our grant-making on 360Giving and regularly review and update this information.
We produce annual surveys for grantees and supporters and publish the findings of these for transparency on our website and in our newsletters.
We are always at the end of the phone and regularly get out into the community to discuss project ideas and discuss feedback.
We fund both project and core costs for organisations and are very open to receiving applications for organisational development too.
Where organisations need to adjust the timelines or objectives for their projects, we try to offer flexibility with this as far as possible. We understand that things don’t always go to plan and would much rather fund something that is practical and deliverable, even if this takes a little longer to complete.
We provide copies of application and monitoring forms so that organisations are clear about what is expected of them before they apply.
We are committed to having clear and transparent relationships with our grantees – encouraging them to get in touch with any questions or concerns as they build their relationship with us.
Our funding priorities and strategy commitments give clarity around our intentions. We use data and insights to inform our work and are committed to producing thought pieces drawing on our experience and knowledge of groups working to address issues in our area.
We are committed to light-touch reporting and have recently modified our monitoring form to ensure that the questions are clear and proportionate. We have also reduced our word limits so that applicants understand the level of information we require for our donors and other partners.
We ask for different information from applicants that already have a grant with us in comparison to those who are first-time applicants so we are not duplicating the information requested.
We are also reviewing how we use this information and looking to ensure that we are capturing more of the ‘lessons learned’ from groups to ensure the information feeds into our wider organisational development.
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 have simplified both the application and the evaluation process to make it very simple for both parties, particularly simplified the language and eliminated unnecesary corporate jargon. In addition, for the evaluation we also indicate that instead of our own one-page form we are happy to receive something that was already produced, as long as it contains most of the information required.
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. We also now send out the entire small grant sum as soon as the decision is made (it used to be half at the start, half at the end of the project).
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. We still allow for this to take place, provided we’re being informed of the situation and context.
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.
As we approach our 10th anniversary (Feb 2025) we will reflect to see if we’re able to refine our philanthropic focus, to more clearly depict what we are hoping to achieve as a funder.
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 application process.
We send shortlisted candidates a list of points for discussion, inviting them and their teams to participate in a call (if accessible) with our Programme Director and Trustees.
We make full use of publicly-available information and avoid asking grantees for this.
We are conscious of the bureaucratic burden on grantees and are mindful of not prolonging due diligence checks. We run a standard compliance check on all grantees, checking proof of banking and current directors / trustees.
During our pre-grant call with grantees, we will discuss organisational aims and practices and their latest financial statements and reserves policy.
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.
Once we have committed support, we work with grantees to transfer grants in a timeframe which meets their needs whilst respecting our fund availability.
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.
As a result of our peer review session, we have made it clear on our website homepage that we don’t accept unsolicited applications.
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 have introduced multi-year grants to some long-term partners and ideally would look to expand this approach, if possible.
We pride ourselves on having open and trusting relationships with our grantees, many of which have been nurtured over a number of years. We want grantees to feel comfortable being open with us and to view our relationship as a partnership. To that end, we are honest and open with them and often consult them before making significant changes to our practices.
We never request bespoke reporting and always invite grantees to update us at a stage which suits them and will willingly accept internal reports, reports created for other partners or a meeting / video call to update us, if those options are preferable.
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 trust our community foundation members to decide whether a funding round is suitable for an open or closed application process themselves.
When providing programme criteria, we set out our priorities clearly for members to relay to applicants.
We commit to asking for relevant information from our members specific to the cause and context of the fund or research only, to ease their workload and share clearer learning.
We want our partnerships with communities and donors alike to be based on trusted relationships.
Therefore, we commit where possible to providing funding that enables successful applicants to adapt the uses of their grants in response to emerging needs.
Each community foundation carries out due diligence during the funding process.
We commit to building reasonable timeframes into programmes for open applications when working with funding partners.
We commit to asking funding partners to make timely decisions as to which community foundations they plan to fund. This is to ensure that community foundations are able to properly resource the delivery of a programme before any set deadlines.
Where possible, we commit to providing flexibility for our members to directly reach out to known groups in times of emergency rather than holding application rounds.
We publish our funding data on 360Giving and in our annual reports.
We commit to giving useful feedback to any unsuccessful community foundations in any open bid applications.
Following the application process of our national programmes, we commit to collecting more information from our members about unsuccessful applicants to understand issues more nationally, using this information to help shape future collaborations.
We commit to encouraging all funding partners to provide flexible funding agreements, whether focused on a specific theme or geographic region. This includes funding core costs, multi-year resourcing, and other provision costs we know are important to applicants.
We commit to working with donors to understand their ambitions at the start of a partnership, reflective of the learning outcomes and needs of the possible applicants they are supporting. This will enable us to compile more relevant and inclusive programme criteria for our members in order to improve application processes and reporting.
We commit to respecting those we work with and all organisations or individuals who apply to our funds, ensuring all communication is positive and inclusive.
The average grant size of a community foundation grant is £4,000 and most of the community groups and charities we fund are small volunteer-led organisations. Therefore, we do not wish to overburden applicants during any phase of a UKCF-managed programme.
Where possible, we commit to working with our funding partners to outline reasonable and proportionate expectations, so that community foundations and their successful applicants can provide meaningful reporting at a level comparative to the funding amount they received.
One of the principles of the Third Sector Framework is transparency and this underpins everything we do. We publish an information pack to go with each funding opportunity which sets out very clearly the purpose of the funding, and often explicitly says what will and will not be funded, as well as clear eligibility criteria. We also hold one or more online information sessions during the application window for each opportunity, so that interested parties can come along to hear a little bit more information and ask questions – this can be helpful for organisations to decide whether or not to spend time applying.
The other way in which we save organisations’ time when applying for funding is that all Framework members have already gone through a fairly rigorous application process and at certain tiers, have submitted a lot of supporting evidence and documents. We then aim to keep funding application forms as straightforward and focused as possible, only asking questions that a grants panel will need to assess that application, and never repeating anything the organisation has already answered on their Framework membership form.
Things we could do more of: I like the example given of looking for rules within unsuccessful applications to feed into any changes and improvements. We probably do this to some extent but not necessarily consistently.
Please see the response above on how the Framework membership application process enables us to keep our funding application questions relevant and limited to only what is needed in order to making funding decisions.
One thing I think we could try more is a two-stage process. We have sometimes used an Expression of Interest stage followed by a longer application stage, but I think we should build consideration of this into every piece of funding we channel to the sector.
When Nova uses the Framework to distribute their own funds, the grants panel are happy to take some risks, for example, funding an organisation that is new to the district perhaps without a proven track record yet, but whose application is strong and absolutely aligns with the aims of the funding. Panel members acknowledge that organisations might need support along the way and, with this in mind, are happy to support innovative projects knowing that adaptations may need to be made if things do not work out as planned, and that this is ok as it means that learning is being put to use and leading to positive change.
However, for the majority of funds that are channelled through the Framework, the commissioning bodies tend to be quite risk averse. They often do ask for quite detailed delivery plans and will sometimes go back with further questions after a grants panel has taken place. This might be something we consider more explicitly, i.e. how Framework representative(s) on a grants panel might encourage other panel members to consider risk slightly differently and accept some level of risk.
We are always very clear in all our comms about deadlines and timetables, and we stick to these. When we develop our timeframes and schedules for each funding application, our priority is to ensure the application ‘window’ is reasonable and allows applicants enough time. We then look at how our own internal processes can fit around this so it is our time that is ‘squeezed’ rather than our members’ time.
We have published on our website that applicants will receive the outcome of their application within 8-10 weeks but in reality it is much less than this. We aim to hold our grants panels within 10 days of a funding application deadline, and once decisions have been finalised, applicants are notified as soon as possible, taking into account that sometimes a commissioner may get in touch with an organisation to clarify a detail in their application.
All our funding opportunities are ‘open’ in the sense that all Framework members are eligible to apply and funding is not targeted at a particular organisation or group of organisations. There are occasional pieces of funding where eligibility is restricted to Tier 3 organisations (these are smaller, grass roots organisations working in the district).
We give written constructive feedback to every unsuccessful applicant. We try to explain the reasons why they were not successful at the same time as highlighting what they could have included or what the panel would have liked to have seen. If any applicant contacts us for further, more detailed feedback, we, or someone from the commissioning organisation, will offer this over email or phone.
We are also open in the sense that we publish all our grants data on 360Giving (in cases where Nova has done the grant management).
One thing we have started to work on is calculating our success rates for each fund. We haven’t yet published these but it’s certainly something we could consider doing. We’re currently planning a big relaunch of the Framework later this year and as part of that, plan to publish our average success rate.
Many of the opportunities that go through the Framework have already been designed by the commissioner, and they tend to be quite specific and restricted to some extent. However, where Nova have had funding to distribute directly that has been channelled using the Framework, we have offered core rather than project funding to enable our members to use the grant funding to support costs including utilities, rent and staff salaries.
Another way in which we are flexible is (again, when it is Nova’s funding) we allow grant recipients to make adjustments to a project once they have begun work. We strongly encourage them to get in touch with us in these situations to talk through any changes they would like to make and the reasons why, so that Nova can check the work still fits with the aims of the grant and support them as much as possible.
As mentioned above, we work very hard as a team to ensure that our communications are very structured and worded clearly. We make sure we respond to any queries from organisations as quickly as possible, and we’re very conscious of keeping applicants updated where needed.
In cases where Nova are managing a grant that has gone through the Framework, Nova’s Contracts and Grants Manager sends out grant agreements to successful applicants soon after they are notified of the outcome of their application. I do think we could perhaps be better at communicating expectations for the relationship between us though, and making sure grant recipients understand what they can do if particular issues or challenges arise. It would be worth us thinking about building in these initial conversations into our processes more systematically, instead of on an ad hoc basis which I think is how they tend to happen currently.
We try to be as proportionate as we can, although we don’t have control over the kind of reporting a commissioner might ask for if they are managing the grants. Where Nova is managing them, we aim for light-touch reporting and have a new CRM system we use to send out short, simple forms for organisations to complete and submit easily. The reporting requirements are always clearly written into our grant agreements.
The Framework is also proportionate in our membership application process. We have a tiered system of membership which means that all sizes of organisation can apply, but the detail and supporting evidence required is proportionate to the organisation (the main determining factor being annual income).
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.
As providers of unrestricted funding, we place our trust in our grantees to allocate resources where they are most needed. This flexibility not only empowers our partners to address their most pressing challenges but also mitigates our risk by allowing funds to be directed toward critical needs as they arise. Where we restrict a grant we ensure we remain flexible to changes during the project’s life.
We conduct thorough due diligence to ensure that the organisations we support are well governed, financially stable and classified as ‘going concerns.’ In instances where this status is uncertain or unconfirmed, we carefully assess the associated risks before making a funding decision.
The Foundation is supportive of taking calculated risks by funding new and innovative ideas to enable grantees’ growth, improved outcomes and sustainability.
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.
Our Fund Managers are committed to being open and approachable. While our resources limit the ability to provide feedback on every application, we are dedicated to offering timely and constructive feedback upon explicit request. Our goal is to support applicants in enhancing their understanding and improving the quality of future applications.
Each year, we submit a comprehensive report to the Charity Commission, outlining our grant-making activities and financials. This report is also accessible via our website, ensuring transparency for those seeking information.
To encourage transparency, our website is designed to be clear and straightforward, providing detailed guidance on what we do and do not fund.
We empower grantees to respond adaptively to evolving priorities and needs by providing unrestricted or strategic funding whenever possible. If this is not feasible, particularly for specialised funding purposes, we strive to make our support as flexible as possible often opting to tie grant funds to pre-agreed outcomes rather than specific activities.
We offer considerable flexibility in the types of work and costs we fund, including project-specific and operational expenses, tailored to the needs of each organisation. We maintain this flexibility throughout the grant duration to ensure that organisations can adjust how the funds are used, and over what timeline as circumstances change.
When we award a grant, we view it as the beginning of a collaborative relationship, where mutual understanding and open communication are key. We seek agreement of expectations from the outset via a formal offer letter detailing clear terms and conditions, we encourage honest dialogue and provide flexibility to address challenges as they arise.
We strongly encourage our grantees to maintain open, honest, and transparent communication throughout our partnership. This level of candour enables us to provide the most effective support as they navigate the inevitable challenges that arise. By fostering clear and consistent communication, both parties contribute to building a strong, collaborative working relationship, ensuring that we can address issues promptly and adapt to changing circumstances together. This approach not only enhances the impact of our funding but also strengthens the overall success of the organisations we support.
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 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 also try 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 on our website. Our website is clear about how we find grantees and make decisions – including stats on how we found the organisations we funded in the previous year. However as our website is still a recent development (launched May 2024) we will monitor for any related increase in unsuitable unsolicited enquiries.
For repeat or continuation grants we often streamline the proposal process by using the latest grant report as a core part of the proposal submission for the next grant.
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 they hope we can give them.
We are learning about how best to bring climate considerations and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) into our conversations with current and prospective funded partners. We are committed to doing this in a proportionate way, but which also generates useful intelligence to support our grant-making.
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, aim to discuss them with applicants, and to make grants in such a way that the risk is mitigated e.g. by giving more than requested in some instances. We will sometimes invest in helping fragile organisations remain sustainable and ride out challenges if we think their work is particularly important, or support organisational development and capacity building alongside programme funding.
We recognise that many grantees are likely to assume they cannot ask a funder for more help, so we aim to reassure grantees they can share challenges or bumps in the road with us, in order that we can explore if we are able to assist further. We are open to making ‘crisis support’ grants where our funding can play a role in supporting an organisation through a challenge.
We also know we create risk for our grantees when we end a grant, especially if doing so suddenly. To mitigate this, we sometimes make exit grants of one additional year’s funding as a way of transitioning out of a relationship and are committed to continuing to learn how to manage the ending of a funding relationship well.
Our Foundation Forums (quarterly online gatherings for funded partners) seek to nurture a culture of peer learning, including an honest and open approach to sharing challenges.
We do not operate fixed timetables for decisions, and we will make decisions between formal meetings if urgency requires. We recognise that timeliness is one of the things that can add value to our funding. We will work and make decisions quickly if an organisation comes to us in crisis.
When we are in dialogue with a potential grantee, we aim to ensure they are clear on our timelines and are advised of any changes.
We try to plan ahead 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 c.£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 publish a report on our website about what feedback we’re getting and what we’re doing in response.
We seek to offer meaningful feedback to grantees on the grant reports we receive from them and about what we have learned from them.
We aim to ‘work in the open’ through our website and social media, to make it easier for people to discover how we work, what we’re doing and learning. This also helps to show grant-holders and partners that we are learning from what they share with us.
We only use restricted funding where necessary and make use of what we call ‘designated unrestricted’ funding instead of restricted grants whenever possible.
We have included a section in our assessment 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 unrestricted and restricted 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 aim to be clear at the outset about the intent or expectation to make a repeat grant (or not) when a current grant expires.
We aim to be clear about our expectations with all grantees at the grant set-up stage – covering outcomes, communication and reporting and learning opportunities. We use grant set-up calls as standard to go over these things and 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 aim to be clear at the outset of a new grant about expectations regarding the end of the grant and the possibility of further funding.
We try to give feedback on what we have learned from grant reports and how we’re making use of this in support of our grant-making and funding strategies.
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. Where a grant is unrestricted, we’ll often use an organisation’s annual report, 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. We have published information on our website to share our approach to reporting.
We are making use of calls or meetings with grantees to replace written reports in some instances. In these cases, we will take our own meeting notes and use this as the report record.
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 where we also have an eligibility quiz to help potential applicants check if they meet basic criteria.
We aim to be friendly and approachable in answering queries on the phone and via email that are not obvious from our published guidance, and we have a ‘contact us’ form on our website to encourage applicants to get in touch to discuss their projects. 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.
Wherever possible, we run 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 90% 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.
We continually review our processes and recognise that there is always a level of ‘risk’ for a funder (and indeed a risk in being too demanding in what we ask, or too cautious in what we fund).
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 £190,000), we inevitably have a timetable long enough to allow for careful review, including by an expert panel. When there is a more urgent call to respond to the needs of our applicants, we have adapted our application and assessment process so that we can communicate funding decisions earlier.
Our grants data is published on our website and on 360Giving after each funding round (and indeed have been doing so since virtually the start of 360Giving).
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.
We regularly commission an independent survey of applicants and grant holders, the results of which are published in full on our website. We also respond to any identified areas for improvement and make changes where possible.
We aim to be a listening, responsive and open organisation, supported a team 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.
We work with our grant holders to provide support and flexibility when challenges arise and always attempt to arrive at a solution that is acceptable both to us and the grant holder.
Our grant conditions are published online as well as provided to grant holders 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 and give clear guidance on what grant holders should include on their updates. Our blog on reporting gives a step-by-step guide to the process. 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. This has recently been updated (May 2025) in response to the dramatic rise in applications – we have tightened our criteria, provided ‘guidelines at a glance’ and given more detail on how applications are assessed.
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. This is now also published on our website.
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 publish the number of applicants applying and the amount we are likely to fund each quarter, and express this as a percentage success rate.
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 one month and given feedback.
Our applications should take no longer than approximately 8 hours to complete and no more than 1000 words, and will get members feedback on this.
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.
Many of our grant applications are assessed by a panel of young people, therefore, we ask questions of the most benefit and relevance to them that will equip them to make informed and inspired decisions.
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 transparent about funding criteria and priorities and have these advertised clearly on our website and a link to this information on the application form. Additionally, we are open to what our funding priorities and processes should be, adapt these wherever needed, and are ultimately guided by young people, our members and our community.
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.
• We make sure that you can find everything you need to know about applying for a grant in one place on our website.
• We publish our success rates and how many grants we expect to make
• We regularly review the way we make funding decisions, looking out for ‘unwritten rules’. Then we update our written guidelines, so they are clearer and more transparent.
We host webinars where people can hear about our funding and ask questions.
• People can sign up for a 1:1 funding surgery about their proposals
• We only ask for information we don’t already have.
• We have shortened our application form as much as possible, using simple language, and we review this every year
• We are happy to push our funders who give money to us to distribute on some of their boundaries and encourage them to take on more risks – for example around funding CICs
• We are looking carefully at what risk looks like to us in terms of financial management; reserves; safeguarding; and governance – and at whether our approach disadvantages organisations we want to support.
• As well as covering project overheads, we make a contribution towards general running cost as part of all our project grants, which grantees can use as they wish.
• We fund organisations doing good work in our areas of interest and offer development support in areas they have identified as priorities for them
• We publish response, decision and payment timetables.
• Our decisions are made within 4 weeks of application deadline, and applicants are informed shortly after the panel meeting
• Where applications are turned down, we sometimes signpost them to other funders suggesting they apply to them.
• Where applications are turned down for one fund, but they might fit another of our funds, we would transfer this application to another fund without them having to re-apply.
• We write to all organisations whose applications were unsuccessful giving the main reason for our decision.
• We involve young people in all our grants panels / funding decisions and give them decision making powers
• We strive to having a diverse panel that reflects the community of Westminster
• We conduct an annual member survey and publish the findings, including asking for feedback on our grant making processes
• Because we have confidence in our application processes, we have confidence that we can trust the organisations we decide to fund
• We allow them to make adjustments to operational plans and budgets when needed
• We keep informed by keeping in regular contact, if grantees wish that to happen – as a member organisation we have a good understanding of what’s going on generally
• We have close, trust based relationships with most members, including grantees
• We don’t expect grantees to be in regular contact (unless they want to) but encourage them to call us if there are concerns or issues about the work or our grant that they want to discuss.
• We co-produce and align our M&E with other local funders so grantees can use the same systems
• We always ask for feedback on our M&E processes and change things accordingly
• We only ask minimal information for small grants (relating to who they are reaching as part of the project)
• For larger grants, we do ask about outcomes, but we provide a lot of support to organisation if they struggle with this
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 increased our messaging about our success rates (as they are currently at a historic low) so that applicants can make more informed decisions about whether or not to apply to us.
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 have recently revised our reporting forms with a focus on usability to support funded partners to provide us with the right information and prevent common errors.
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 are planning to publish further information about our decision-making this year – in particular to provide further information about how we balance the quality of the application, against our funding priorities – including geographical spread, types of projects and organisations and our approach to equitable funding – so applicants can further understand our decision-making.
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. In recent years we removed the cap on core cost. 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 more
A summary of key points for foundation staff and Boards
Read more Publication
The evidence for multi-year funding
Read more Publication
Six principles for open and trusting applications and assessments
Read more Publication
Understanding what’s needed and taking action
Read more Publication
Supporting charities to navigate prolonged uncertainty
Read more Publication
Supporting charities to navigate prolonged uncertainty
Read more Publication