Despite encouraging moves in the right direction, transparency and simplicity aren’t as common as you'd hope in the grantmaking world.

We'd all love to think that funding is awarded based on the importance, quality and impact of the work taking place. Too often this gets confused with the quality of the application - which automatically puts some applicants at a disadvantage, including those whose first language isn’t English, or whose written English isn't as good, perhaps due to their education or background.

Worse, it’s not even always as simple as writing a quality application. Because, with some funders:

• Their guidelines or websites aren’t always clear or up-to-date, meaning applicants who phone for clarification and advice often receive insights that put them at an advantage.
• Decision-making processes aren’t always transparent and objective - sometimes, a quiet word from the right trustee or Funding Officer might increase an application’s chance of success, so who you know (or whom you’ve spoken to) is an advantage.

​
All this is inherently unfair and counter-productive to the aim of achieving the greatest social impact. Fortunately, there are movements starting to address various aspects of this unfairness, including two we’ve written about before: Modern Grantmaking and Fix the Form.

In the meantime, applicants who are well-connected or know how to play the system can still gain an advantage. Something I'm passionate about doing is trying to level the playing field for smaller and less experienced organisations.

So this blog is about two things: good reasons for initiating contact with a funder before applying, and useful information to probe for once you’ve done so, to give you an advantage too.

Proposal length and format: some funders request applications 'in writing' without providing much more detail. It's reasonable (as well as beneficial to them) to ask for their guidance on the recommended length, format, or a list of headings/information that should be included.
​
Supporting documents: you might have important information that can't be included within the set questions or word limits on an online form - such as a case study, an infographic explaining impact data, or a key policy. You can ask whether these additional documents would be accepted, and how to share them - for example can they be emailed separately to a funder, if you can’t upload them to the form?
​​
Technical eligibility questions: even when funders try to establish clear guidelines around things like reserves levels, match funding or legal structure, there are often organisations and situations that fall into a grey area. It might only be possible to confirm your eligibility through an initial call, and funders are often willing to help with this.

​I'll often ask if I can give a 30-second summary of the organisation or project, to explore if it's the type of thing they'd be interested in funding. These discussions often yield surprisingly helpful information, for example:

Clarifying key phrases: funders may use terms like 'national significance' or 'systems change' without a clear explanation of exactly how they define or measure them. An initial conversation can help you understand their interpretation, and how you can best evidence that you're a good fit.

Confirming focus areas: frustratingly, in practice funders sometimes have a more limited focus than they may indicate in their guidelines or charitable objectives. For example, I’ve heard: “Yes, in theory we do fund projects anywhere in the UK, but at the moment we're highly unlikely to support a project outside of Bristol, Bath and the surrounding area." Checking whether a funder is actually focusing on a narrower geographical or thematic area can save you wasting time on a fruitless application.

Considering how much to apply for: again, funders may provide broad guidance on their website, but share more helpful information on the phone, especially once they've heard a bit about your work. Perhaps they'd consider awarding a larger amount because it's a project very close to their heart, or a smaller amount because it's an initial pilot, or maybe there's a threshold where if you stay below it, the assessment process will be simpler or quicker.
​
Checking when to submit: I've had funders suggest that I hold back an application for a few months, either because they've been inundated with proposals in a particular funding round, or they've recently funded several similar projects and the trustees are unlikely to fund another one imminently. Equally, funders might give a reason why getting an application in very quickly is beneficial. This is almost never information that can be found on their website, but is incredibly helpful.

I think it's far from ideal that you need to press for this type of information – it's not a fair way of doing things, or a great use of anybody's time. In an ideal world, every funder would have a clear website which they keep updated as their priorities shift, or when they get enquiries from applicants that show something isn't adequately explained.

And, as I say, many funders are getting better at this. But in the meantime, probing for extra information is a key part of the job - because if you’re not getting and taking advantage of it, other applicants will be.

This month we're taking a breather from writing punchy opinion pieces or gazing into our crystal ball and focusing on something more straightforward but still vital - everything you need to know about the humble case for support.

A case for support is an internal document that you create to outline the problem your organisation exists to solve, what you do about that problem, and what you're going to achieve as a result. Quite literally, it's your case for why donors or funders should support your work.
 
A good case for support effectively acts as a comprehensive, well-organised filing cabinet of convincing content that you can pull out whenever you need it - for a funding proposal, a meeting with a donor, to create copy for a webpage.
 
It’s very unlikely that anyone outside your organisation will see - or would ever want to see - this full document in all its glory. But it should be the starting point for your external, donor-facing documents. It's never a case of just copy/pasting large chunks of content from your case for support into an external document and just adding images and a catchy title - the text will always need tailoring for the audience and context - but it’s still a brilliant shortcut.
 
(Just to confuse things, often organisations create a shorter, branded external document to 'sell' their work to donors and also call this a ‘case for support’, but that’s not what we’re talking about in this blog.)
 
Working with organisations to create their case for support is one of my favourite jobs. As well as it being a privilege to learn all about fascinating and important new causes, I love the process of asking a few targeted questions, rapidly building up an array of content on colourful post-its, then shaping it into a structured document.

And organisations always seem to really value having that outsider’s perspective - while they can supply all the passion, lived experience and raw content, a few ‘devil’s advocate’ questions from us can help to clarify details, tease out vital extra information and explain things clearly and convincingly for an external audience.

Many organisations shy away from creating a case for support, because they don't feel they have time. I’m not going to lie, it does take time to create. But it will certainly save you time in the long run, and also increase your return on investment from fundraising.
 
A good case for support will equip you with:

• Better fundraising content - you're making an investment in creating strong, reusable core content that you can start from every time, then focus on fine-tuning for different audiences.
• Brand and voice consistency - your staff, trustees and volunteers will feel more confident about writing and talking about your organisation's work. When they need to write an application, give a talk, or create some key information to leave with a donor, they’ll be able to use a consistent tone and always weave in those key messages.
• The ability to capitalise on last-minute opportunities - if a funder launches a programme at short notice with an urgent deadline (which they love doing), or a donor asks for information ahead of a meeting the next day, no need to panic - you’ll be able to respond quickly, using your case for support as a starting point.
• A stronger and more convincing argument - as you craft your case for support, you’ll be able to identify any weaknesses or gaps. For example, if you’re not clear why your organisation approaches things a certain way, or why a service user would come to you instead of another organisation, the chances are a funder will be asking the same question. So this is a chance to critique and fine-tune your arguments over time, on our own terms, outside the rushed process of a specific application. This is more important than ever if you want to stand out in such a competitive funding climate.

There are many ways to structure a case for support, and they can get pretty long and complicated, but fundamentally you need to cover four key areas:
 ​
The need for your work:

• The problem you exist to solve
• The people that you work with - their circumstances, experiences, wishes and needs
• How you know all this - who you have asked, what they have told you etc.

 
Your ‘solution’:

• What you do in response to these issues
• Specific details about your planned activities: what, where, how long, how often etc.
• Why you decided to do things that way, and how you have evolved your work over time

 
Your impact:

• The overall change you’re trying to achieve, and the long-term, big-picture consequences of that change
• The measurable outcomes you’ll achieve as you work towards that change
• How you’ll measure, report on and reflect on your progress

 
Your expertise and credibility:

• What makes you best-placed to achieve this change (in essence, why a donor or funder should trust you to do the work)
• To demonstrate this, you might highlight some brief background information about your organisation, as well as your unique skills, lived experience, knowledge, connections, track record and qualifications

​There are loads of potential information sources to draw on, but here are a few:

• Statistics (about the people you work with, their circumstances, and your previous impact)
• Information collected from your service users and staff via surveys, interviews etc.
• Third party research and reports
• Photo, video and audio content
• Case studies and stories
• Information about the local delivery landscape, your partners and funders etc.

 
This can feel like a daunting process if you’ve never done it before, but it's important to stress that you don’t need everything to get started. As it's an internal document, developing a case for support can be an ongoing, iterative process - start ASAP, but make a note of what else you'll need to research, gather and add over time.
 
The best cases for support are never finished, they evolve over time. For example if new research is published that reinforces the need for your work, or if you've just written a brilliant answer (even if you say so yourself) to a specific funder question that you want to re-use in future, find a place for it in your case for support.

We’ve tried to write this blog as a stand-alone free resource for anyone wanting to get started on their case for support. Remember that you're the expert on your work and the reasons why you do it, and your case for support is just a way of laying all that out in a logical, structure way.
 
If you feel you do need some extra support, we’ve got a couple of options:

• Come along to one of our fundraising training courses – we cover developing a case for support on both our fundraising strategy and trusts and foundations courses.
• Ask us for a quote to run a case for support workshop for your organisation - we'll design the session, ask the questions, take all the notes and write it up afterwards, so you can just turn up and talk!

Have you ever found a funder that seems like the perfect fit, only to learn they don’t accept unsolicited applications?
 
If your work is niche or you’ve approached all the ‘obvious’ trusts and foundations already, then engaging a couple of these invitation-only funders can feel key to broadening your funding base. But there's an age-old question - how can we get on their radar, especially if they don’t even welcome initial enquiries?
 
Over time I’ve seen various organisations succeed in building thriving relationships with private, strategic funders. It isn’t quick or easy, but there are a few steps you can take.

Rightly or wrongly, there can be many reasons:

• They may feel it’s a better use of their limited resources to focus on supporting a select few grantees, rather than assessing applications from, and corresponding with, many prospective applicants.
• They may want to avoid being inundated by applications, particularly if they previously had a more open approach and received lots of poor quality or irrelevant applications.
• If they’re operating in a niche sector, they may feel they already have all the expertise and connections they need to proactively identify organisations themselves.
• They may want to be very discreet or private about their grantgiving, for example if the funds are coming from a high-profile individual or sensitive source. 
• They may be extremely restricted in what they can actually fund, for example if they’re following a very specific set of wishes or instructions from their settlor.
• They may want to help charities avoid wasting time and money, knowing this can often happen as a result of vague or poorly-designed application processes (well, I can hope!)

​If a funder relies on their expertise or networks to identify potential grantees, then a recommendation from the right person could make all the difference. For example, your existing funders or project partners will already be engaged and invested in your work – perhaps they know someone working for an invitation-only funder and would be willing to introduce you?
 
Do your research and don’t be afraid to ask nicely for an introduction, explaining why it’s strategically important to you – you might by how willing people are to help.

We’ve run countless network mapping exercises with Boards. The conversation often starts the same way: “None of our trustees know anyone / are willing to help.” But it’s amazing how quickly things can change if you explain that (1) you’re not looking for introductions for rich and famous people, just prominent people in your sector; and (2) you don’t expect Board members to open their address books willy-nilly and start asking for money, but simply make a couple of strategic introductions.
 
Trustees will know more people than you (and they) think. I’ve seen organisations build on such tenuous links as “I worked with them 10 years ago”, “I play badminton with them on Tuesday night” and “Our kids go to the same school”.
 
Try running a network mapping exercise with your trustees, or circulating a list of staff working at a target invitation-only funder to check for connections. And if your trustees really aren’t well-connected, this doesn’t have to always be the case. Explore why – does your organisation focus on recruiting trustees with particular skills and backgrounds in a way that prevents people with better connections from applying? Could you persuade your Board to set a strategic objective to recruit new trustees with funder connections over the next 1-2 years?

Tired old introductory letters and emails are far from the only ways of making first contact. Trusts and foundations can and do interact openly on social media, attend funder fairs, speak at events or collaborate on things like research, policy or advocacy work.
 
Jumping straight into a direct approach about money often goes nowhere. Instead, do your research into where/how funders are actively engaging (e.g. social media platforms or events), find a topic that could be mutually beneficial to you both, then start a conversation accordingly.

I once met an organisation that was told by a funder that “everyone we speak to mentions you, so we thought we should find out what you’re about.” In their own words, they created so much “white noise” around a funder that they eventually couldn’t resist getting in touch.

Organisations that successfully build relationships with invitation-only funders often have one thing in common – they’re thought leaders. They might be known for their high-profile CEO, engaging blog, or policy work.

The term “thought leadership” sounds daunting, but you absolutely don’t need to be a large organisation with a big comms budget. If you work in a niche area, you’ll already be an expert in your field, with people coming to for advice. Sharpening your public expert voice takes time, but is a great way to get on a funder’s radar, and will bring many benefits beyond fundraising.

While some invitation-only funders simply continue to fund the same organisations every year, many do proactively research new grantees. So if a funder did a niche online search for your specialist area today, would they find you? And if they landed on your website right now, what would they think?

There are a few fundamental things you need to be visible and appealing to potential funders:

• A clear and accessible website that articulates what you do and why, backed up by things like testimonials and case studies
• An easy option for people to contact you and/or find out more
• Some work on search engine optimisation, to ensure that key search terms related to your cause lead potential funders to your website, not those of others doing similar work.

These final tips might seem the least relevant to trusts fundraising, but they definitely an indirect role in getting you in front of invitation-only funders over time.

It's tricky to generalise about how the pandemic has impacted organisational grant funding levels. While inevitably many charities and social enterprises have struggled, many others with a grassroots community focus have thrived. Some have even unexpectedly smashed their fundraising targets.

However, if there's one thing that’s been consistently difficult in the past 12 months, it's securing funding for capital projects. From talking to various funders, I think there are two (overlapping) reasons for this:

There's no getting away from the fact that renovating a building or creating a new space is complicated and risky. Capital projects often run over budget and behind schedule, and sometimes fail entirely. Even if you've never managed one before, you may know this if you've ever done work on your house – once work begins on the roof or walls, new issues are uncovered, then all bets are off.
 
This is before you even factor in Covid and Brexit, which will inevitably impact the cost of materials, the availability of labour and the complexity of working on a crowded site.
 
Funders know all this, and it can worry them. As we recover from the pandemic, they'll continue to be inundated by countless worthy and urgent causes, and won't possibly be able to fund them all. So it’s not surprising that many choose to play it safe. Put yourself in a funder's shoes – would you rather award £10,000 towards a grassroots community food bank that will have a definite and immediate impact, or a complex capital project that might be subject to delays and complications?

Trusts and foundations often award capital funding in a different way to project grants. If you apply for £25,000 towards a £200,000 project, rather than a funder immediately awarding a grant, they might make a conditional pledge that you can draw down on later, once you’ve raised enough for the project to start.
 
This approach helps funders to manage risk, but it introduces other problems. If you're in the early stages of a capital campaign, their pledge might remain unused for 6, 12 or even 18 months while you fundraise the rest – and in that time, they’re not having any charitable impact.
 
Remember that many trusts and foundations are registered charities themselves, so they have their own charitable objectives to work to, and need to report back on their impact. So as well as focusing on lower-risk projects, a funder might well prioritise applicants that can achieve shorter-term impact.

With a capital project, it's easy to get wrapped up in the specifics of what you’re fixing or building, and the implications for your organisation. This stuff needs to be in an application somewhere, but it's less important the why.

Who will benefit from your capital project, and in what specific ways? What will they do or experience in the new space you're creating, and how will this change their lives and/or improve the local community?

Try to distill this into four or five clear and distinct bullet points. If you can tie this in with the impact of the pandemic (for example, if this has exacerbated certain needs among the people you support, or resulted in the closure of alternative services), this will help to convince a funder that your project is needed now​.

As mentioned above, Brexit and Covid bring further complications for capital projects. So the more you can show that you're a safe pair of hands, the more you'll get a risk-averse funder on side.
 
For example, have you created a risk assessment and detailed contingency plan? Have you consciously chosen suppliers that work in a Covid-secure way? What is your ‘Plan B’ to avoid disruption to services if there are delays? Have you allowed some flexibility in your budget for unexpected costs? Don’t expect a funder to assume these things are in place - you need to convince them that you've been diligent and methodical.

For similar reasons, your previous track record will be a factor for funders. Has your organisation successfully delivered other capital projects? If not, do any of your leadership team or Board bring relevant experience from elsewhere? Evidence of previous experience in areas such as project management, financial management and architecture / accessible design can be a real plus.
 
If you can't point to this, a funder might reasonably expect you to show how you're buying in the appropriate professional expertise and guidance, or assembling an experienced project steering group.

​Capital funders often insist on specific criteria such as you having an architect’s plan, proof of building ownership or a long lease, and a certain level of match funding secured.
 
There’s good reason for this. An architect’s plan shows that a project has been professionally designed and can be an insurance policy against nasty surprises that crop up once work has started and threaten to delay or derail a project. A long lease ensures that a project will definitely have long-term charitable impact rather than benefitting a private landlord for unknown purposes. Match funding reduces the chance that a funder's pledge will remain unused for a long time while you scrabble to raise the rest.

​There's no getting around the fact that capital projects are high-risk, even if you can action all of the above, and many funders might continue to be more risk-averse and short-term in their thinking for a while.
 
You might benefit from dividing a complex capital project into several independent phases, each with their own smaller fundraising target, project timeline and set of outcomes. This could be particularly helpful if you haven’t raised much yet and don’t have previous experience of managing capital projects. It'll enable to get started, demonstrate impact and improve your track record of successful delivery sooner, even if it means temporarily compromising on your ambitions.

Here’s a secret that not every fundraiser will admit: we all go through periods where things aren’t going to plan and we’re not quite sure how to change it. Periods when it feels like the money is drying up, you’re hearing no more often than yes, and you’re struggling to inject that fresh sparkle into your work.

With Covid-19 piling yet more pressure and competition on trusts and foundations, there’s arguably never been a tougher time to fundraise. For many organisations, emergency funding will tide them over until the end of the financial year, but the pressure to find that next big grant win is never far away.

If you're going through a lean patch and feel like you've tried everything, here's out checklist of things to try:

Funders generally only care about what you do and how you do it if you first convince them why your work is so vital. This is one of the best ways to make sure your application truly stands out.

If you haven’t taken the time recently to refresh your evidence base, this is a great way to strengthen your case for support. For example:

• Has another organisation or your local authority published up-to-date research that independently verifies the need for your services?
• Have any recent events exacerbated the challenges faced by the people you support, and could you explain this more clearly?
• Could any recent news stories or high-profile events act as a ‘hook’ for funders?

If your core narrative is already strong, then turning your attention to the supporting elements is a great way to enhance your applications:

• Can you collect a new case study or testimonial to perfectly illustrate the power of your work?
• Can you source some fresh images or create an engaging video?
• Is there a more visually appealing way to present key information – for example, converting statistics into an infographic?

Too many people think of trusts and foundations as faceless institutions only looking for cold hard facts and statistics. But great applications appeal to hearts as well as minds. Even the larger, professionally-run funders like human detail, personal stories and visual content - so this is often an area to make quick improvements.

​Trusts and foundations often feel they lack the time and resources to provide feedback (particularly at the moment) or worry it might be contentious and generate unwanted debate. But if you're persistent and diligent about seeking and responding to feedback, it's a great way of turning around a run of rejections.

In the current climate, many funders will be more risk-averse - with more applicants, and potentially less money to give away, they'll be keen to avoid projects that don't deliver results.

This could pose a problem if you’re trying to deliver an experimental or long-term project, or reliant on grants from several funders to go ahead. With Covid-19, many organisations can demonstrate an urgent need for support and show how grants will have an instant impact. In a crisis-driven landscape, the last thing funders want is the possibility that your grant might lie dormant for a few months before it can be spent.

So now is a good time to step back and consider whether there’s a different way of delivering your project:

• Could you design a smaller pilot to start ASAP, then scale it up once more funding is secured?
  
• Could your capital project (which are particularly tricky at the moment) be split into several shorter, independent phases?
  
• Could you trim any non-essential budget lines to reduce your shortfall and seem like a lower-risk proposition?

​There are common reasons why funders might be concerned about your organisation – if your reserves seem too high or too low (sometimes you can’t win!), if your work sounds unusually expensive to deliver, or perhaps if it sounds like a service that they expect another organisation (or the local authority) to be delivering instead.

If you’re experiencing a run of funding rejections, spend some time anticipating what your ‘red flags’ might be, and proactively address them in your applications. If you can’t get feedback from funders to help with this, try going through your applications with a mentor, friend or fundraiser from another charity to get some independent advice and a new perspective.

​Trusts and foundations frequently change their priorities and new programmes spring up all the time, particularly as funders scramble to respond to changing needs arising from Covid-19. While you'll inevitably stumble across some opportunities by chance or word-of-mouth, doing some proactive research will help you to unearth better prospects, and is a great way out of a rut.

It helps to think creatively about the impact of your projects, particularly if they're a bit niche. For example, with a few tweaks to your case for support, your community gardening project might appeal to funders that are focused on improving mental health or reducing social isolation for older people, but weren't previously on your radar.

We recommend using a funding database like Funds Online or Funding Central, or the excellent free database by Charity Excellence Framework. You should also check whether you can sign up for regular funding alerts with your local authority or Community Voluntary Service (CVS).

​When a couple of key funding decisions go against you, it’s easy to hit the panic button and start churning out as many applications as possible. While this might temporarily ease the pressure, it rarely produces better results. Actually, you probably need to spend more rather than less time getting applications spot on, in the ways that we’ve described above.
 
If you’re on an unlucky run, take a step back and make sure you’re focusing on quality rather than quantity - even if that involves pushing back on pressure and targets from anxious colleagues. Use previous successes to remind yourself that you are good at your job, and that by following some of the steps above, you’ll turn around results in no time.

​Good luck!

Ask people about a trust fundraiser's most important skills and I bet these would be common answers:

• Knowing which funders to approach and what they're looking for
• Their existing relationships with funders and the ability to build them
• Writing clearly, concisely and convincingly
• Organisational skills to keep track of tasks and deadlines

These are all vital, but I've got an underrated one to add to the list: the ability to ask the right questions.

The trouble with the art of ‘writing convincingly’ is that it can be misunderstood as ‘papering over the cracks to make sure we've got a good chance of succeeding’.

As a trusts fundraiser, have you ever been guilty of the following:

• Rejigging a budget to disguise a lack of detail or figures that don’t really make sense?
• Writing some creative waffle to make up for missing evidence or impact data?
• Knowing deep down there’s a weakness in your project but hoping the funder won’t notice?
• Burying that gut feeling because challenging your colleagues feels awkward?

Many organisations approach us for fundraising support to help make their jobs easier. And in many ways, we try to be easy to work with: we plan ahead to allow time for deadlines, we condense funding guidelines into a few key bullet points, we'll sift through dense background reading to find a few key points for an application.

But you know what - sometimes we’re a bit of a pain to work with, and I wouldn’t have it any other way.

It’s easy to keep people happy, pretend you’ve got everything you need for a strong application and submit it as quickly as possible. Initially, everyone will feel great. Then when the funder comes back and says no, suddenly everybody is a lot less happy.

That's why it's important to avoid papering over the cracks and be prepared to ask the difficult questions:

• Have we provided enough consultation data, key statistics or third party research to convincingly articulate why our project is needed?
• Have we been specific enough about our planned activities - what, where, when, who, how often?
• Have we explained exactly what we’re looking to achieve, and how we'll measure the results?
• Have we demonstrated why we’re the best organisation to do this work, and how we're different from any similar services that exist?
• Have we been crystal clear about exactly how much money we need, and what we'll spend it on?
• Have we gone looking for the perfect case study or quote to capture the essence of what we do?

This isn't about voicing your personal concerns. It's about trying to really get under the skin of the funder and anticipating what they'll think when reading your application. What will they be looking out for as proof that you know your stuff? What aspects might they be concerned about, given their own funding priorities? Will they understand all the language you've used if they don’t have specialist knowledge of the subject?

Sometimes this means having a certain amount of distance from the cause is a good thing. Our clients often tell us that they chose to work with us because we're knowledgeable and passionate about their work. I agree this can be a good thing, particularly when approaching specialist funders, but it's also risky to know far more about a subject than the person who’s going to be reading your work, or so convinced about a project that you lose the ability to critique it objectively.

All that said, when you’re working with people who are super busy and a funding deadline is looming, I appreciate that digging your heels in and asking difficult questions won’t always make you popular.

But ask yourself this - would you rather have a difficult conversation during the drafting process when there's still time to address something, even if people think you're being too cautious? Or deal with the disappointment later when an application is rejected and you're powerless to fix it?

I’d always rather trust my judgement and stick to my guns on a point that could be crucial to the funder, than regret having backed down later.

People do usually appreciate this in the long run. We've had plenty of tricky conversations with clients when working on a major application, but they frequently tell us later that it was worth going through the pain to make it stronger. 

​With rising levels of social need and ever-increasing competition for grants, the National Lottery Community Fund remains one of the few bright spots of hope in the UK funding landscape for many charities.

While the £600million+ they give away each year through various programmes is a lifeline for many organisations, some are put off applying because of the time required to understand the different programmes and funding criteria, concern about the level of competition, or not being sure that they’re eligible.

We’ve helped charities to secure over £1million of Lottery funding in recent years, and have developed a good understanding of what Lottery are looking for, and how to emphasise key strengths and address weaknesses in your application. And since many community-based organisations need stable multi-year funding more than ever before, we wanted to share a few tips:

​A common misconception is that when Lottery say they provide funding to ‘communities’, they only mean physical, geographical communities. This isn’t the case, because Lottery can and do fund organisations supporting communities of interest, which they define as ‘people with similar interests or life experiences’.

We recently worked with The PKD Charity to secure Reaching Communities funding for their programme of face-to-face, online and telephone support for patients and families affected by polycystic kidney disease. The people they support live all around the UK, and some rarely if ever physically meet up with others.

However, feedback from beneficiaries and charity staff emphasised that people forge important relationships through the charity’s social media support groups, telephone befriending or periodic meet-ups – and that these relationships help them to overcome challenges and live more fulfilled lives. That’s the true definition of a community – and it was a community that relied to stable funding to flourish.

If your organisation works with people united by certain interests or challenges, rather than a geographical location, then you may well be eligible for Lottery funding if you can make a similar case for support.

This is arguably the most important criteria for many Lottery funding programmes. You need to show that your services are genuinely based on people’s ideas, aspirations and unmet needs, not just dreamed up in a boardroom somewhere.

This can be difficult to demonstrate, particularly if it feels like second nature. For example, if you run a local community centre, your frontline staff will interact with service users on a daily basis, and naturally develop activities in response to their ideas and needs. As we’ve written before, you still need explain and provide examples of how this happens, as well as detailing more formal consultation methods, such as surveys and focus groups.

Working with The PKD Charity, we had an unfair advantage – they’d actually commissioned us previously to run a stakeholder consultation exercise, which involved surveying hundreds of patients on their needs and opinions about the charity’s support, and interviewing prominent medical professionals. This type of exercise takes time and money, but is hugely beneficial for Lottery applications – and indeed for other funders. So don't hold back from including your consultation data in your application.

A strong funding application doesn’t just rely on written words. Images and video bring your work to life, inspire empathy, and allow people to tell their story in their own words. This again helps to demonstrate community support and involvement in your project. Audio clips are an underused tool for people who have a story to tell but don’t feel comfortable talking in front of a camera. And diagrams and infographics can often explain something succinctly that'd otherwise need a few hundred words.

Lottery encourage and appreciate the use of imagery, audio and video. For some funding programmes, you can actually by video rather than in writing. And you can really bring a detailed second-stage funding proposal to life by including things like infographics, embedded audio clips and video links.

Like many funders, Lottery are anxious to avoid duplication – in other words, funding multiple organisations to deliver overlapping services.

This doesn’t mean that your work needs to be 100% unique – and claiming that it is may show that you haven’t researched your project well enough. However, you should explain why other services aren’t accessible to the people you support, or appropriate for their needs.

For example, when we secured funding for a youth employability charity, we provided evidence that young people were put off accessing other local services because they didn’t have an opportunity to build a trusting relationship with the service providers, and because of the complexities of local gang rivalry and ‘territory’. In another successful application, we showed how people with a learning disability weren't benefitting from mainstream health and wellbeing activities, because they needed extra time and support to address their complex needs.

This is a way to both demonstrate an in-depth understanding of your sector, and provide further evidence that your services are based around people’s needs and views.

Receiving feedback and even criticism about your work can feel uncomfortable, but embracing this scrutiny will improve your chances of securing funding. Take every opportunity to clarify feedback that you don’t understand, and pro-actively check that you’ve explained any complexities in your project clearly.

For example, for a recent application that we supported, the Funding Officer expressed concern about the financial sustainability of the project. This was something we felt had already been addressed adequately – but by drawing their attention to what we’d written already and asking what they felt was unclear or missing, we were able to drill down into exactly what the assessment panel was looking for, and how best to provide it.

We’re confident that following these tips will increase your chances of securing Lottery funding, and indeed other grants too. Feel free to suggest any further tips in the comments below. Good luck with your application, and take a look at how we could potentially help you with funding applications.

We often get asked by charities and social enterprises for advice on how they can raise more unrestricted funding from trusts and foundations.

Many organisations are very successful at securing grant income, yet still find themselves in a tight financial position because the majority of funding tends to be restricted to a specific purpose. While project funding is vital, it rarely gives you the flexibility you need to thrive as a resilient and innovative organisation.

We've compiled some of our best tips on how to achieve the holy grail of unrestricted grant income - from some obvious funders to approach, to how to think outside the box when it comes to improving your financial position through trusts and foundations fundraising.

While it’s understandably tempting for funders to want to fund tangible and exciting projects, this doesn’t give organisations the freedom to pay key staff or cover central costs. Not unlike yoga, strengthening your core is vital and will make you much better at everything else you’re trying to achieve too. 

​There’s a growing recognition in the sector that smaller organisations in particular need access to more flexible funding if they are to survive and thrive, particularly at a time when so much local authority funding has dried up. Lloyds Bank Foundation CEO Paul Streets has been particularly vocal about the damage caused by 'projectitis'.  

Here are a few funders that give core funding to a broad range of charitable causes:

• Lloyds Bank Foundation (no surprise given the above)
• Tudor Trust
• Esmée Fairbairn Foundation 
• Masonic Charitable Foundation
• Paul Hamlyn Foundation

If you’re looking for core funding, here are a few tips:

• Check out the above funders and see if your organisation is eligible to apply.
• Use a funding directory like Funds Online or Funding Central to search for other core funders. We suspect that other funders will pop up over the coming months. These directories have a subscription fee for most organisations but it’s often a worthwhile investment, as they have an option to search specifically for core funding.
• Develop a strong case for support for why you really need core funding. For example: why don’t you have much unrestricted funding already? Why would it be so valuable to you – would it enable you to recruit a key member of staff, respond to a new opportunity or restructure in an important way? What makes your organisation such an expert at what it does, therefore such a strong candidate for core funding?

It's easy to focus on core funding, but what are your specific development needs which mean that project funding isn't suitable? For example, you might be looking to scope out an innovative new idea, invest in a building or specific piece of equipment, or improve your digital capabilities.

For each of these areas, there are specialist funders who can help. For example:

• National Lottery’s Digital Fund and Social Tech Trust provide digital funding
• The Fidelity UK Foundation fund "organisational development and planning initiatives"​
• Garfield Weston Foundation and Clothworkers Foundation provide capital funding

Clearly these types of funding will be a little more restrictive than no-strings core funding. However, being specific about your needs will enable you to make a more convincing case for support and open up a broader range of potential funders, thereby increasing your chances of securing that much-needed investment.

Many funders don’t explicitly provide core funding, but will consider providing unrestricted grants to organisations they know, value and trust. But getting in position to access these opportunities takes time, effort and patience.

You’ll probably need to secure at least one, possibly several project-specific grants from a funder first, then focus on building a relationship with them. It helps to go above and beyond expectations by thanking funders quickly and in a memorable way, then reporting well on the grant you received – either by demonstrating that the project went well, or by reflecting honestly on any challenges or complications experienced.

We recently blogged about the importance of building relationships with individual donors and how many organisations get this wrong. The same principles apply to trusts fundraising. A funder that’s engaged in your work is worth 10-20 funders on a cold prospects list, yet so many organisations prioritise the wrong thing.

Once a funder knows you well, they could support you by inviting you to apply for an invitation-only funding round, proactively supporting you with an urgent fundraising campaign, recommending you to other funders, or even just sending you an unsolicited extra cheque. This happens surprisingly frequently but almost never by accident - you need a strategic focus on building great relationships.

This tip isn’t so much about securing unrestricted funding, but reducing how much you need in the first place. Trusts and foundations fundraising isn’t just about writing applications – with a better approach to project planning and budgeting, you can ensure you have a smaller funding gap to fill.

Create a budget calculator for staff, with fixed rows for venue hire, volunteer expenses, travel etc. This helps people to cost up projects accurately in the first place and avoid budget overspends which then need to be covered by unrestricted funds.

Calculate staffing costs for projects carefully, checking with every funder what you’re allowed to include. Don’t just include the main project staff – if other staff (e.g. your Director) are committing time for line management or evaluation, include a percentage of their time if possible. This ensures your project funding fully covers the true cost of your projects, meaning your unrestricted funds can go on something else.

Include a contribution towards overhead costs in each project budget – this could be a blanket 10% or a more specific calculation, depending on the funder's requirements. Collecting lots of small core contributions in this way is often easier than leaving yourself with a big funding gap to cover with core funding requests.

Trusts and foundations fundraising is not a numbers game, and we don’t recommend the ‘spray and pray’ approach of sending generic funding applications quickly to lots of funders.

That said, if you’ve conducted prospect research to develop a funding pipeline, you might find you build up a collection of potential funders who have very broad funding interests and no specific application form or guidelines, making it difficult to identify a specific project to approach them about.

You could therefore consider putting together a core funding template, broadly explaining your work and impact in 2-4 pages and giving a couple of examples of how a small grant would benefit you. You could then send this to batches of say 10-20 funders at a time. Expect a low success rate (even 5% might be optimistic) but treat this as a shot to nothing with funders whom you wouldn’t otherwise approach.

This is likely to work best for smaller, community-rooted organisations whose work is easy to explain and has emotional impact, and who don’t have high reserves. It’s only worth trying in some circumstances, and the usual recommendations for trusts fundraising still apply – you should try to contact the funder first to check if they can give you any advice on applying, and you should tailor each application to their funding interests and average support level as much as you can.

Buzzwords come and go in fundraising. They get picked up as flavour of the month by fundraisers, charities and funders alike, and fade away just as quickly. Although the words frequently change, the concepts behind them are often more fundamental and enduring.
 
For me, one of the most important buzzwords in trusts fundraising at the moment is co-production. This is also commonly referred to as co-creation or co-design, and linked to ‘ABCD’ (or asset-based community development). Isn’t jargon exciting?

What is co-production and why is it so important?

Co-production has a broader definition in project management circles, however in a charity context it usually refers to the practice of involving your service users, clients or beneficiaries (more fun lingo to choose from) in the development of your services.

Funders value knowing that your projects aren’t planned in a top-down fashion based on what you think people want or need, but are genuinely based on their ideas, aspirations and unmet needs. This isn’t about token consultation exercises, but actively involving the people you support in your project design. For example here’s a guide to co-production in social care, along with some key principles.

This isn’t a new idea, and it’s not really a fundraising concept at all – it’s fundamental to service delivery.

However I’m seeing increasing examples of funders specifically talking about or asking for evidence of co-production. I review draft funding applications on a daily basis, and it's one of the most common areas where I feel that organisations can make improvements. In a competitive funding climate, failing to show evidence of this can give funders an easy excuse to discard your application.

So how can you build co-production into your project planning and tweak your funding applications to better emphasise what you’re doing?

​Don’t underestimate what you do naturally
​
For many organisations that we work with, co-production can feel like a strange thing to focus on. It’s not something they consciously try to do, because it’s second nature already.

If you run a local community centre, for example, your frontline staff will be interacting with your service users on a daily basis, and constantly evolving activities to reflect their ideas and unmet needs.

And this is fine – in fact, it’s often ideal. Co-production doesn’t always mean contrived exercises. But don’t expect a funder to assume you’re doing it, or give you credit for it, unless you tell them.

Spend some time reflecting on how this happens organically in your organisation, then include at least a paragraph about this in your funding applications. For example you could explain how staff and service users typically interact, the questions that your frontline staff like to ask, and your internal processes for factoring people's feedback and ideas into service design.

Demonstrate how you gather structured feedback

Depending on the nature of your work, co-production may not happen quite as organically. And even if it does, it can be useful to gather more structured, formal feedback periodically.

Surveys are excellent for quickly gathering broad feedback. Online surveys usually enable you to reach more people more quickly and analyse data automatically, but only if your service users have online access. You can use focus groups to test specific ideas or explore topics in more detail and gather more in-depth feedback.

Demonstrate your approach to gathering feedback in your funding applications. Cite both your quantitative results (e.g. survey data) and qualitative results (e.g. individual quotes). If a funder asks a specific question about co-production, use the space to explain your approach and rationale in more detail.

If you have the budget, appointing an independent consultant or agency to design the feedback process and/or analyse the results can bring added credibility. We recently designed an independent consultation process for a charity and later helped them to write funding applications, and the independent feedback data has been invaluable in demonstrating the need for their work and the extent to which service users are involved.

Explain how you use feedback and work with people to improve your services

Of course, listening is only one part of the process. And it counts for little if you don’t act on what you’re being told.

Successful projects often have steering groups or committees who meet regularly to review impact data and service user feedback, then take action where needed. Steering groups should include (ideally multiple) representatives who have lived experience of the issue you’re tackling. Organisations that really succeed in embedding co-production in their work - and maximising their impact - often have representatives with lived experience on their Board of Trustees.

Providing evidence of all this should impress funders, however it can still sound a bit theoretical. So go one step further and include some concrete examples of how you’ve co-created services. For example, were your service users instrumental in designing any of your current services, or have you improved or evolved a project in specific response to feedback?

This is especially important if you’re trying to do something unusual or surprising that a funder may not naturally value. Funders often have specific ideas about how work should be delivered, yet also say that co-production is important to them, which can feel contradictory!

And what about if you’re writing a final report for a project which needs further support, where you already know that the funder won't provide simple continuation funding? Would they be more receptive if you demonstrated your learning and proposed a slightly different, co-created project as a follow-up?

Finally, not everything that you tell a funder needs to come from the horse’s mouth. Testimonials and endorsements – from either service users involved in your work, or delivery partners who are impressed with your approach – are great for increasing your credibility in a funder’s eyes.

​One of the first rules of trusts fundraising is that relationships are crucial – but forming them can feel harder than ever.
 
This is the inevitable result of an ultra-competitive climate. With so many funders inundated by interest, they’re taking steps to minimise the number of applications they receive, and the time they spend communicating with applicants.
 
As a result, many fundraisers scratching their heads by the lack of feedback, the requests for no unsolicited applications, and cryptic guidance notes. Sometimes it feels like funders and fundraisers are barely speaking the same language – but with more understanding on both sides, there’d be less wasted time all round.
 
We recently launched a new one-day trusts fundraising course – and, in response to the widespread confusion and frustration out there, we included a ‘What funders say, what they mean and what to do about it’ segment.
 
Having gathered feedback from loads of charities and social enterprises, and compared it to our own experience, we’ve developed a list of five frustrating things that funders say, and what you can do about it:

1. We don’t fund core / running / salary costs
 
The funder’s point of view: personally I think that charities need to invest in being strong, well-run organisations more than ever, despite the media obsession with things like management and admin costs. Sadly, funders are often more drawn to shiny, tangible projects. There are legitimate reasons for this: funders have their own charitable objectives and wish to demonstrate impact for what they give, and projects often feel cleaner, simpler to understand and more likely to produce short-term results.

However, it’s easy to misunderstand what funders mean when they say they don’t fund core or salary costs. Often, they mean they won’t fund these costs as stand-alone items, or don’t want to pay to simply keep people in jobs. It doesn’t necessarily mean they won’t fund core or salary costs as a part of a project, if packaged well. 

How to respond:

• Develop thorough project budgets which include a proportionate contribution towards key staff costs.
• Include a contribution towards overhead costs where possible – if in doubt, check with funders what they allow.
• Identify specialist funders who do fund running and/or salary costs
• Adopt a full cost recovery model where you understand the true cost of your projects and develop funding applications to match – this will prevent you having to ‘dip in’ to core funding to sustain projects. 

2. We only fund new ideas and activities
 
The funder’s point of view: a bit like magpies, funders are often attracted to shiny things – that means new, exciting and innovative projects. This can be infuriating, particularly if you’re seeking funding for a project that you know works and is needed more than ever. It’s often driven by concerns about sustainability – funders don’t want to feel relied upon to keep supporting the same work year on year, or may feel that it’s better value for money to make a smaller contribution to test a pilot project that can then be scaled up.
 
How to respond:

• Take every opportunity to speak to funders before applying – ideally a written application shouldn’t be the first they hear about your project.
• Don’t take your projects for granted – they may not feel new to you, but can you still explain why they’re innovative in your field?
• Show the learning process – have you evolved your approach over time, based on lessons learned and feedback from beneficiaries? Does new research or the political climate make your work more necessary?
• Show how your project can be a catalyst for policy change, or broader work by bigger organisations.

3. We don’t fund work which is a statutory responsibility
 
The funder’s point of view: this is something I find very frustrating, particularly at a time when an increasing number of activities are seemingly being abandoned by statutory services. However, many funders simply don’t want to feel that they’re just picking up the slack for government spending cuts, or don’t recognise how what you’re doing is different – particularly in areas like residential care, housing and employment support.
 
Applying for direct replacement funding is a bit like going on a date and talking about your ex-partner the whole time – if you make a funder feel like you’re only interested in them to replace something you used to have, don’t expect them to feel special and excited about partnering up with you.
 
How to respond:

• Take the time to research and explain why your work is vital in relation to the social context and what your beneficiaries need, rather than just pitching it as the same project that used to be statutory-funded.
• Show how your work is different, better or more innovative than related statutory services.
• Demonstrate social return on investment – does your work actually save e.g. the NHS money?
• Know when to walk away from a funder that simply isn't the right fit – this avoids wasted time all round.

 
4. We don’t accept unsolicited applications
 
The funder’s point of view: in the current climate, many funders are inundated by applications, lots of which are poor quality or don’t meet their priorities. As a result, they choose projects based on personal recommendations or their own research. This helps them to make better use of their limited resources.
 
How to respond:

• Don’t just apply anyway – funders won’t change their mind and won't appreciate you ignoring their guidelines.
• Send a short letter introducing your work, enclosing an annual report or inviting them to visit you – make it clear that you’re starting a conversation, not asking for funding.
• Develop a relationship – do you know anyone who can introduce you? Can you subscribe to their newsletter or connect on social media?
• Ask their advice – have they funded similar projects that you can learn from, or do they know any other funders who might be able to help?

 
5. We don’t enter into discussions about funding in advance or provide feedback
 
The funder’s point of view: again, this is often driven by a lack of resources. Funders prefer to dedicate time to the organisations they’re funding. Also, feedback can be contentious – perhaps they used to provide it, but often got a negative reaction. Finally, they may simply have nothing meaningful to tell you, if they couldn't find any fault with your project but had to make a tough decision between several organisations they liked.
 
How to respond:

• Critique applications yourself in advance – read any guidelines carefully, see how you compare to other similar projects they have funded, and ask someone less familiar with your work to review your work.
• Look to build a relationship with funders in advance, so they’re more likely to help you.
• Phone rather than email – you may get ‘off the record’ feedback, rather than a generic email response.
• Meticulously record any feedback – you won’t get much, but you can gradually build a picture over time.
• Accept that competition is tough and move on – your time may be better spent on the next application.

To learn more about how to build relationships with funders, write compelling applications and develop a successful trusts fundraising programme, click here to check out our training courses.