Next Modern Grantmaking Trainings

We’re running our next two "Fundamentals of Modern Grantmaking" training workshops on 9 July and 9 October, in London. Our last two fundamentals workshops sold out so book your place now!


Going to Philea Forum? Let's meet!

Next week we're off to Belgium for Philea Forum 2024. If you're going to be there please send us an email so we can arrange a catchup. We're always keen to meet!


Explaining why you said 'no' is awkward and time consuming and funding organisations should do it anyway

Most people doing most ordinary jobs do not have the power to literally crush the dreams of strangers. But as a grantmaker, this is your unhappy burden.

There might be grantmakers out there that actively enjoy saying ‘no’ to grantseekers, but we have yet to meet any. If they do exist they probably lurk in clubs of people who enjoy kicking puppies and watching it rain on parades.

However, there is a way of saying ‘no’ that still gives grantseekers something of real value to take away from their encounter with you. You can do this by supplying an explanation as to why you have made the rejection, alongside the ‘no’ itself.

An explanation is a precious asset 

When an unsuccessful grantseeker receives a ‘no’ with little or no explanation as to why they have been rejected, they have not gained any useful knowledge that they can use to make better or different decisions in future. They have put in a load of time developing a proposal, they have come to the virtual doors of the funder, and they have left totally empty handed.

But when an unsuccessful grantseeker receives rejection feedback that is specific and clear, then this knowledge can become a valuable asset. This asset can then be deployed to make decisions such as whether to:

• change the targets or goals of their current work.
• seek out different funders.
• change the style in which they talk about their work.
• seek out help in the writing of proposals.
• adopt a model that isn’t grant dependent.

So grantmakers that give specific feedback, even if it is only modest in length and detail, are giving their grantseekers a valuable asset, even as they deny them actual money. Moreover, this is an asset that very few people can supply:  only a funder has the privileged knowledge to able to explain why a proposal wasn't eligible or successful. 

But why should grantmakers take the time to do this? Working life is busy enough as is.

An explanation is an act of service

As grantmakers our employment contracts make it pretty clear who we work for, and in whose interests we act: our funder.

But we believe that despite this, all grantmakers should value service in their work. We define 'service' in grantmaking as doing things in our jobs that aren’t the most easy or most convenient for us or our colleagues, but that make life better for people on the other side of the funding table.

Providing rejected grantseekers with some degree of explanation is an act of service because what you are giving them is precious, but it comes at a cost to ourselves in terms of the time it takes. Furthermore, it is an act of service because there's another cost -  a psychological one. There's just no getting away from the fact that it feels terrible to tell someone that they've been rejected, and as grantmakers we'd all rather avoid that feeling if we could.

But what if there just isn’t enough time for explanations?

The most common reason that grantmakers don’t share explanations for rejection is that their employer has a policy that says 'we don't do this'.  Normally this is because the funder as an institution has decided it isn’t a good use of the time and money it would take to develop and share reasons for rejections.

We disagree with this position, as widepspread as it is. We believe it is a good use of funder money to make and take the time to explain to applicants why they are not successful. 

Here’s why.  Providing feedback on rejected proposals, even potentially to a lot of rejected proposals, is way cheaper than providing grants themselves. Most funders could probably supply an entire year’s worth of feedback for failed grantseekers for no more cost than a tiny percentage of the entire yearly grants budget.

Now, certainly, this means potentially reducing the total grants you make, from, say 100 grants a year to 98 grants a year. And clearly a couple of organisations have now very meaningfully lost out.

But in exchange for that sacrifice, the funder has now given a valuable information asset to hundreds, maybe thousands of organisations that can use that information to help them to succeed.  The scale of what has been gained is potentially much larger than what has been traded off, and it means funders can achieve the oft-cited dream of helping and influencing organisations who are not direct grantees.

So we believe that funding organisations that don't provide feedback to unsuccessful applicants should stand back, reconsider, calculate what it would actually take to provide a little meaningful feedback to some or all their grantseekers, and then make the changes required to make such feedback routine.

Why? As an act of service. 


Latest Reading - Modern Grantmaking recommends 

• Anna de Pulford, Director of the Dulverton Trust has shared a blog openly discussing how the trust has worked to address the problem of feedback in the grantmaking sector. Includes some great reflections as well as practical tips on how to make valuing feedback a real thing in your organisation. 
• Back in 2016 the UK government decided to merge all the different government funders that funded science into one entity. Wondering what happens when you do something huge like that? Here's an official review that reflects on what happened.
• Philea has launched a practical guide for the philanthropy sector called, “Futures Philanthropy: Anticipation for the Common Good”, which explores how to apply foresight and futures thinking into philanthropic work and strategy.
• The Center for Effective Philanthropy (CEP) recently released a report all about foundations funding nonprofit endowments. 
• PEAK Grantmaking shared an article by Danielle Royston-Lopez, Grants and Program Associate at The Kataly Foundation that provides a fantastic perspective on alternatives to traditional narrative reporting processes, including a warning to funders to avoid replicating unhelpful dynamics while testing out new approaches.

How about a new job or trustee role in grantmaking?

• Civic Power Fund (UK) is hiring for a Chair of the Board of Trustees. This role is voluntary. Deadline is midnight, 26 May 2024.
• The Association of Charitable Foundations is hiring for a Practice Officer (UK, part-time). £16,260 - £17,081 (Full time equivalent £27,100-£28,7320). Deadline is 11:59pm, 27 May 2024.
• The Sainsbury Family Charitable Trusts (UK) is hiring for a Deputy Trust Executive.  £55,939 per year. Deadline is 5pm, 28 May 2024.
• Paul Hamlyn Foundation (UK) is hiring for a Chief Executive. Salary range: £130,000 – £140,000. Deadline is 11:59 Sunday 2 June 2024.

Grantmaking 'joke' of the month

Funder: Tell us how you’ll become sustainable once our grant ends.

Applicant: We can’t. We’re a non-prophet. 

Got any terrible or actually funny grantmaking jokes to share?......tell us. 


Have you been forwarded this newsletter? Want to subscribe?

No problem - sign up here.

Who are we?

Gemma Bull and Tom Steinberg run Modern Grantmaking, and we write this newsletter. We do consulting and training exclusively for funders, and wrote a book on how to be a modern grantmaker, too.