Competition for grant funding is fierce but, as Hannah Gannagé-Stewart discovers, in-depth research and careful planning can make for a winning application

A helicopter view of the grant funding climate finds funders at one end of the spectrum, watching spending cuts causing chaos on the ground. At the other end are the beneficiaries, whose best interests are the primary motivation for every charity – be it grant making or otherwise.

In the aftermath of the recession, industry predictions leaned towards a decrease in giving as donors began to feel the pinch. In real terms, according to Charity Market Monitor 2010, the top 500 charities experienced a loss of £64m caused by a drop in donations and legacy income in 2008/09.

However, things weren’t looking so bleak elsewhere in fundraising, with retail and event income flourishing despite the tricky financial climate. Donors might have been concerned by the recession – and with it, the inevitable loss of their disposable income – but they didn’t turn their backs on charity altogether. In other words, the donor’s purse strings may have tightened, but their philanthropic intentions hadn’t. The same might be said for trusts and foundations.

The main problem faced by foundations is that they are currently floundering under a deluge of applications. As the extent of the government’s cuts becomes clear, competition for grants has become fierce. Funders are struggling not only to keep up with the demand, but with the application of traditional funding criteria in this new environment.

“Trusts are having to rethink their priorities, but they are buffeted by circumstances,” says David Emerson, chief executive at the Association of Charitable Foundations (ACF). “A recent concern for our members is that charities increasingly need cashflow or underwriting as other funding sources are withdrawn and some trusts will be thinking, ‘is that something we should do?’”

On the flip-side, he goes on to explain that trusts were never set up to cover the core costs that bodies such as local authorities and primary care trusts did. And the reduction in this type of funding is leading trusts to re-evaluate what is distinctive about their role. For this reason funding criteria must be followed to the letter. Whereas in the past an optimistic funder might have taken a chance on an unusual or inventive project, they must now be able to guarantee a tangible return. Increasingly, it seems the best way for them to do that is to fund the projects that show the greatest awareness of economic limitations across the board. For example, those organisations that have already decided to share back-office facilities, or are taking a strategic approach to limiting expenditure on anything that does not impact end users on the ground. Similarly, match funding is something that we may see more of in the future, requiring a contractual agreement between the charity and the funder stating that the project will seek funding from another party to match the sum already offered.

Despite all of this, it is important to maintain perspective. Although funders are aware that demand for their services is high, their fundamental objective has not changed. What they are looking to achieve now, is the same as it always has been: the maximum social return on investment. The critical elements of a strong funding grant still conform to the age-old guidelines recited the world over by indefatigable funders. They know that no matter how many times they communicate their remit and requirements, at least half of the applications they receive will not comply.

Winning applications

Alan Bookbinder, director at Sainsbury Family Charitable Trusts, has seen the good, the bad and the ugly of applications from all kinds of organisations. The Sainsbury Family Charitable Trusts is the administrative centre for 18 separate grant making bodies, each run by a Sainsbury family member with their own special interests and objectives. Bookbinder explains that although the trust makes about 1,000 grants per year, not all of those are application based. Some are proactively sought by the grant maker. Despite the relatively small number of awards available, he estimates that they receive around 10,000 applications every year, all with an apparently legitimate and urgent need. So, how do they sift through such a weight of applications?

“Our main request of people making applications is that they do their research,” explains Bookbinder. “That is, they look at the website to find out more about us and they look at the annual reports of the different trusts to understand specifically what they are likely to fund.”
This may sound like an obvious starting point but Bookbinder emphasises that applications are often submitted without any evidence of this having been done. Fundraisers are as strapped for time as they are for cash and unfortunately that can lead to them feeling forced to make a high volume of general applications, rather than concentrating on fewer, but better researched submissions – targeting the relevant funders.

Bookbinder advises that taking time on the application process is vital if you want to secure funding at a level that will sustain your concept or proposal through to fruition. The best applications, he says, are addressed to a specific person and demonstrate a real understanding of what the trust is willing to fund. In turn, the grant applied for should fund a project that correlates with the foundation’s objectives and be for a realistic sum of money. “If people haven’t done their research then they’re going to end up on the reject pile very quickly. A good application is well written and succinct. In summary, it is professional,” says Bookbinder.

Bringing professionalism in to the mix may seem a little unfair when you consider that most small charities are run by volunteers and cannot afford to train people in the finer art of fundraising in the way that large charities do. Notwithstanding that, a professional and self-assured approach to funder acquisition is possible if you have done the necessary level of preparation and research.

Linda Pawlowski, learning and development manager at the Foundation for Social Improvement (FSI), explains: “Large organisations have the funds to train and develop their fundraising staff and invest in different fundraising methodologies.” Smaller charities on the other hand can’t afford that luxury. “A new charity is built on the passion of the founder and needs of a community,” adds Pawlowski.
The FSI provides free training for charities that raise less that £1.5m per year in voluntary income, and is very clear that research and evaluation are the cornerstones of successful applications.

Personality injection

There is something to be said for a creative approach though. Pawlowski says that the FSI course starts with the basics because funders’ major concerns are that you have met their criteria through in-depth research and that you can demonstrate that the grant will have a measurable impact. If a charity needs help in understanding how to record data and measure impact, Pawlowski recommends the use of a simple logic model. This will help fundraisers understand their impacts and develop a fundraising plan before applying for funding (see Figure 1).

But with the extra competition in recent months, a little creativity might just tip the balance. Pawlowski cites a typical case of one of her tutees, who was adept at sending off textbook applications, with all the right ingredients and a strong project. However, the funders rejected it on the basis that it was “too dry” and lacked passion. An appropriate degree of creativity is difficult to quantify and going overboard could be equally detrimental, but as Pawlowski points out, “this is about beneficiaries, so you do want to be inspiring. Once you’ve answered their questions think about how you can contextualise the stats to make them more human and create a heart-felt story.”

Eyes on the prize

There are no hard and fast rules or exact formulas when it comes to making another group of human beings visualise and believe in your project. What you must do is maintain focus on what you are trying to achieve and stand firm under the pressure of the many forces that are affecting the third sector. Be methodical and diligent in your research and evaluation processes, even if that means taking longer than you feel you can afford to. If you set up and maintain an effective internal evaluation system, it will serve you for every application you do. Be honest about what you can achieve through a particular funder or about the limitations of your project. If you feel that the idea of being awarded funding at this stage is too good to be true, it probably is. Thoroughly assess why that might be and remove any barriers to success before you start applying. Once your application is written, and proofed by an objective party, there should be no reason to doubt that it is a strong and compelling case for a grant.