Do not waste time
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.
Ask relevant questions
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.
Accept risk
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.
Act with urgency
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.
Be open
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.
Enable flexibility
We only use restricted funding where necessary and make use of what we call ‘designated unrestricted’ funding instead of restricted grants whenever possible. (Read more about our approach to flexible funding here.)
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.
Communicate with purpose
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.
Be proportionate
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.
