Applicant perception research Complete findings from phases 1 & 2
Rosie Burrells & Tim Harrison-Byrne June 2022
Phase 1: online survey with applicants
2
Phase 1: Methodology Online survey of fundees and unsuccessful applicants 15th September – 15th October 2021
Fundees
732
209
29%
Emails sent
Responses
Response rate
Unsuccessful applicants
2198
349
16%
Emails sent
Responses
Response rate
• We have included a ‘benchmark average’ based on research conducted with 9 other funding organisations since 2013 • The sample size of the benchmark is approximately 6,400 applicants, although this varies according to the question asked
Phase 1: Research objectives
1.
To explore fundees and unsuccessful applicants’ perceptions of Esmée Fairbairn Foundation, its role and core values
2.
To understand fundees and unsuccessful applicants’ experiences of the application, monitoring and reporting processes
3.
To understand what non-financial support and feedback is of value and where this offer could be improved
4.
5.
4
To understand and explore differences in perceptions among different groups across the above points, e.g. successful and unsuccessful applicants; investees and fundees; DEI groups To discover what fundees and unsuccessful applicants feel Esmée Fairbairn Foundation should be doing differently, and identify others in the sector who it could learn from
Phase 1: Key findings • The context Esmée Fairbairn Foundation’s applicants are operating in is tough. Nearly 9 in 10 applicants say their need for core funding has increased in the last 18 months, and 80% say demand for their services has increased in the same timeframe. • Esmée Fairbairn Foundation is generally seen as a supportive, flexible, and forward-thinking funder. Fundees are very positive about their relationship with the Foundation, in particular they feel well understood and treated as partners. Esmée Fairbairn Foundation performs particularly strongly against the benchmark on ‘understanding us as grantees’ and ‘appropriate monitoring’. • Unsuccessful applicants are generally not as positive, and feel a sense of frustration that they are unable to showcase themselves to Esmée Fairbairn Foundation. There are some particular themes around the restrictiveness of the application process and the desire to have a conversation/ more human contact. 41% say the application process was excellent, very good or good, significantly lower than the 54% among nfpResearch’s benchmark for unsuccessful applicants.
• 38% of unsuccessful applicants say they have experienced a barrier to accessing funding from Esmée Fairbairn Foundation, though reasons why show that these barriers are not necessarily in the Foundation’s control.
5
About the survey sample
6
Vast majority come from the main grant programme – there are 27 investees in the sample “Which funding programme did you apply to for your most recent application?” 95% Main grant 95%
5%
Unsuccessful applicants
Social Investment 5%
7
Fundees
Base: 208 fundees & 348 unsuccessful applicants | Source: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation survey Sept-Oct 21, nfpResearch
Unsuccessful applicants more likely have an income under £250k compared to fundees (38% vs 21%) “What is your organisation's total annual income (approximately)?”
Less than £10k £11k - £25k £26k - £50k
0%
Fundees 2%
Unsuccessful applicants
0% 1% 1% 2% 4%
£51k - £100k
6% 16%
£101k - £250k
27% 18%
£251k - £500k
21% 26%
£501k - £1m
13% 27%
£1m - £5m
17% 2%
£5m - £10m
4% 3% 3%
£10m - £50m
2% 2%
Above £50m Not sure
8
0%
Base: 209 fundees & 349 unsuccessful applicants | Source: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation survey Sept-Oct 21, nfpResearch
2%
Fundees are more likely to say they operate UK-wide
“Which region does your organisation primarily operate in?”
UK wide
13% 7%
London
5%
Scotland
England wide
South East
3%
North West
3%
Wales 1%
Northern Ireland
3% 1%
Other (Please specify)
Base: 209 fundees & 349 unsuccessful applicants | Source: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation survey Sept-Oct 21, nfpResearch
9% 8% 7%
4% 4% 4% 4%
North East
9
11% 13%
5% 5%
South West
East of England
15% 10% 9%
Midlands
Yorkshire & the Humber
32%
5% 5%
4% 5% 3%
Fundees Unsuccessful applicants
Arts, culture and heritage is the most common sector that respondents work in “Which sector does your organisation primarily operate in?”
28% Arts, culture, heritage 26%
19%
Children and young people
22%
10%
Social change community development
20%
Fundees 18% Environment 11%
Social change - community development
Esmée Fairbairn Foundation active grantees
9%
Unsuccessful applicants
17%
Environment
23%
7% Social change - rights, justice and campaigning
10% Other (please specify) 17%
10
25%
17%
Children and young people
Social change - rights, justice and campaigning
Arts, culture, heritage
Base: 209 fundees & 348 unsuccessful applicants | Source: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation survey Sept-Oct 21, nfpResearch
21%
Which sector does your organisation primarily operate in? Other answers
11
•
Sensory impairment
•
Criminal justice and rehabilitation
•
Disability
•
Employment
•
Food and farming
•
Poverty
•
Health
•
Theatre
•
Mental Health
•
Women
•
Advocacy
•
Early years
•
Older people
•
Housing and homelessness
•
Higher education
•
Education
•
Domestic abuse
•
Transport
•
Social care
Majority of unsuccessful applicants were turned down at the first stage “At which stage was your application turned down?”
First stage (EOI only)
First stage (EOI and phone call)
66%
6%
First stage (written application)
17%
Second stage - we were turned down after submitting a detailed application
I dont know
12
Base: 349 unsuccessful applicants | Source: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation survey Sept-Oct 21, nfpResearch
8%
3%
30% of the sample were new applicants
“Have you applied to Esmée Fairbairn Foundation previously?”
Fundees
18% No, this was our first application 36%
Unsuccessful applicants
7% We have applied before and been unsuccessful 34%
13%
We have received a grant previously and unsuccessful before
12%
58% We have received a grant previously 12%
1% Other 1%
3% Not sure 4%
13
Base: 209 fundees & 349 unsuccessful applicants | Source: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation survey Sept-Oct 21, nfpResearch
Most applications were made within the last 3 years
“When was your most recent application to Esmée Fairbairn Foundation?”
19%
In the last 6 months
Fundees 22%
12%
6 - 12 months ago
21% 28%
1 - 2 years ago
31% 22%
2 - 3 years ago
17% 11%
3 - 4 years ago
4 - 5 years ago
5 + years ago
Not sure
14
Unsuccessful applicants
5% 7% 1% 1% 1% 0%
Base: 209 fundees & 348 unsuccessful applicants | Source: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation survey Sept-Oct 21, nfpResearch
2%
Unsuccessful applicants tend to say they make more grant applications per year than fundees “How many grant applications, approximately, would you estimate your organisation makes a year?”
16%
Less than 5
9%
22% 24%
11-20
28% 22%
21-50
27% 8%
51-100
200+
Not sure
15
Unsuccessful applicants 29%
5-10
101-200
Fundees
7% 1% 5% 1% 1% 0% 1%
Base: 209 fundees & 349 unsuccessful applicants | Source: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation survey Sept-Oct 21, nfpResearch
Unsuccessful applicants tend to have a higher proportion of restricted income than fundees “What percentage of your income would you estimate is restricted in some way (e.g. funds a specific project or service)?”
Fundees
15% Under 20% is restricted
Unsuccessful applicants
13%
18% 21-40% 14%
22% 41-60% 20%
24% 61-80% 31%
19% 81-100% 18%
1% Not sure 3%
16
Base: 209 fundees & 347 unsuccessful applicants | Source: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation survey Sept-Oct 21, nfpResearch
Organisations with lower annual incomes are more likely to have a higher proportion of that income restricted “What percentage of your income would you estimate is restricted in some way (e.g. funds a specific project or service)?”
16%
Less than £100k
10% Under 20% is restricted
12%
£101k - £500k
18%
£501k - £1m
32%
8%
£1m - £10m
15% 21-40%
Above £10m
23% 16% 14%
24% 19% 41-60%
22%
25% 7%
16% 36% 61-80%
28% 22% 14%
31% 20% 81-100%
14% 16% 21%
6% 1% Not sure
2% 4% 11%
17
Base: 209 fundees & 347 unsuccessful applicants | Source: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation survey Sept-Oct 21, nfpResearch
A tough environment… Unsuccessful applicants more likely to have dipped into reserves, reduced staff team and feel less financially stable compared to 18 months ago “Esmée Fairbairn Foundation wants to understand more about the context within which you are operating – what are your priorities and challenges. The next questions ask about your organisation’s experiences during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements with regard to the pandemic?” Strongly agree + Agree
88%
Our need for core funding has increased in the last 18 months
89%
79%
Demand for our services has increased in the last 18 months
80%
31%
We have had to dip into our reserves to survive the past 18 months
44%
21% Our staff team has reduced over the last 18 months 34%
The financial stability of our organisation is stronger now than it was 18 months ago
18
Base: 204 fundees & 341 unsuccessful applicants | Source: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation survey Sept-Oct 21, nfpResearch
Fundees
35% 21%
Unsuccessful applicants
Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
19
No differences in fundees’ and unsuccessful applicants’ projects being aimed at specific groups “Is your project aimed at specific groups of people?” 54% My project is aimed at a specific group of people 54%
Fundees Unsuccessful applicants
46% My project is open to everyone and is not aimed at a specific group of people 46%
20
Base: 208 fundees & 346 unsuccessful applicants | Source: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation survey Sept-Oct 21, nfpResearch
Information given to respondents about the DEI questions • Esmée Fairbairn Foundation believes that understanding and making progress towards Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) will be critical in helping them to create a fairer, more inclusive society, and ultimately make them better funders. As part of this, they want to understand demographics of the organisations applying for they support: who they are led by, and who they are reaching. • Esmée Fairbairn Foundation would like to understand more about the leadership of your organisation and the mission of your organisation, and whether these consist of or seek to support any particular groups. You can choose more than one category in the table below, ‘prefer not to say’, or ‘no specific group’ if none apply to your organisation. These broad population groups include many and diverse groups within them. For more detail of why and how, see the DEI Data Standard explanation: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mufFTR0BYAzLjFUh2UgDLgGdhm5FIomn/view • Leadership: Do most of the people who lead or make the key decisions in your organisation belong any of these groups? For example, by most of the people we mean 75% or more of your board of trustees or management committee are from a specific group, or 50% or more of senior staff self-identify as from a specific community or having a characteristic. If you feel this applies, please tell us who they are by selecting the appropriate group(s) below. • Mission: Is the mission of your organisation to aid any of these groups? If it is, tell us who they are by selecting the appropriate group(s) below.
21
Do most of the people who lead or make the key decisions in your organisation belong any of these groups? “Esmée Fairbairn Foundation would like to understand more about the leadership of your organisation and the mission of your organisation, and whether these consist of or seek to support any particular groups. You can choose more than one category in the table below, ‘prefer not to say’, or ‘no specific group’ if none apply to your organisation.” Leadership & key decision makers in organisation
11% 12%
Communities experiencing racial inequity Traveller communities
0% 1%
Unsuccessful applicants 7%
Disabled people Faith communities
13% 1% 6% 6% 7% 4% 5%
LGBT+ people Migrants
10%
Older or younger people
21%
People who are educationally or economically disadvantaged
7% 14% 29% 30%
Women and girls Welsh Language speaking
0% 1% 16%
From your local community
35% 22%
Lived experience Prefer not to say
29% 0%
No specific group
22
Fundees
Base: 179 fundees & 310 unsuccessful applicants | Source: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation survey Sept-Oct 21, nfpResearch
3% 31% 25%
Is the mission of your organisation to aid any of these groups?
“Esmée Fairbairn Foundation would like to understand more about the leadership of your organisation and the mission of your organisation, and whether these consist of or seek to support any particular groups. You can choose more than one category in the table below, ‘prefer not to say’, or ‘no specific group’ if none apply to your organisation.” Mission of organisation
23% 22%
Communities experiencing racial inequity Traveller communities
2%
Unsuccessful applicants
7% 12%
Disabled people Faith communities
28% 1% 6% 7%
LGBT+ people
12% 11% 13%
Migrants
22%
Older or younger people
38%
People who are educationally or economically disadvantaged
31% 39% 14%
Women and girls Welsh Language speaking
22% 1% 3% 22%
From your local community
36% 26% 26%
Lived experience Prefer not to say
1% 2%
No specific group
23
Fundees
Base: 168 fundees & 279 unsuccessful applicants | Source: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation survey Sept-Oct 21, nfpResearch
22% 13%
Organisations whose leadership and mission is aligned to no specific group were more likely to be fundees in the sample “Were you successful with your most recent application to Esmée Fairbairn Foundation?”
Total sample
Leadership belongs to any DEI group
Leadership belongs to no specific group
Mission is to support any DEI group
Mission is to support no specific group
67%
66%
63% 58% 51%
49%
42% 37% 33%
34%
Successful applicant 24
Base: 209 fundees & 348 unsuccessful applicants | Source: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation survey Sept-Oct 21, nfpResearch
Unsuccessful applicant
Unsuccessful applicants much more likely to say that they have experienced barriers to accessing funding from Esmée Fairbairn Foundation “Would you say that your organisation has experienced any barriers to accessing funding from Esmée Fairbairn Foundation?”
Fundees 10%
Unsuccessful applicants
Yes 38%
90% No 62%
25
Base: 206 fundees & 340 unsuccessful applicants | Source: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation survey Sept-Oct 21, nfpResearch
Lack of internal / professional fundraising capacity
Lack of opportunities to meet / discuss application
“Our team are all from disadvantaged backgrounds and no one is specifically qualified, or allocated to write grant applications. As a result, we are far better at explaining ourselves in person, which there was no opportunity to do with Esmée Fairbairn.”
“Repeated attempts have been unsuccessful. I do wonder if the barriers are around where we are based and access to meet with the team at Esmée Fairbairn.”
Social change, £251k - £500k, unsuccessful applicant
Perceived barriers are mostly due to the format of the application process
Children & young people, £501k - £1m, unsuccessful applicant
Limiting first stage application
“Our inability to get our point across through the written application process as a result of the far reaching and complex strategy with several different strands to our work was a barrier.” Social change, £101k - £250k, unsuccessful applicant
26
“Would you say that your organisation has experienced any barriers to accessing funding from Esmée Fairbairn Foundation? Please explain why you gave this answer:” Base: 206 fundees & 340 unsuccessful applicants | Source: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation survey Sept-Oct 21, nfpResearch
The application process
27
Unsuccessful applicants are less likely to describe the application process as ‘excellent’ or ‘very good’ compared to the benchmark “How would you rate your experience of the application process?”
43%
Excellent
43% 38%
Very good
34% 12%
Good
OK
Poor
Not good at all
Don't know
28
Unsuccessful applicants
Fundees
4%
4% 19%
Very good
12% 28% 25% 32%
OK
3% 1%
41% 9%
Poor
0% 0%
Not good at all Benchmark Average
2% 3%
7%
Good
16%
0%
Excellent
Esmée Fairbairn Foundation
Base: 209 fundees & 349 unsuccessful applicants | Source: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation survey Sept-Oct 21, nfpResearch Base: ~ 6,400 applicants across 9 funders | Source: Grant maker benchmark, nfpResearch
13% 4%
4%
Benchmark Average Don't know
2% 1%
Esmée Fairbairn Foundation
On average, applicants spend more time developing a funding proposal compared to other funders in the benchmark
Full sample
Reading guidance and deciding to apply
Submitting expression of interest
Phone assessment
Assembling evidence and information
Developing funding proposal
Completing application
Post application clarifications and follow up
Esmée Fairbairn Foundation
3.7
4.9
7.1
12.0
18.4
13.6
6.4
Benchmark average
n/a
n/a
n/a
12.3
14.4
12.5
4.2
Fundees
3.9
5.4
5.4
13.0
22.4
14.2
7.0
Unsuccessful Applicants
3.6
4.5
8.1
11.1
15.0
13.1
5.5
Fundee / UA
“How many hours would you estimate you spent on the following aspects of your funding request / grant application to the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation?” Average number of hours Base: 557 respondents | Source: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation survey Sept-Oct 21, nfpResearch Base: ~ 3,600 applicants across 9 funders | Source: Grant maker benchmark, nfpResearch
Overall, fundees are more positive about the reasonableness of the application process compared to the benchmark “How reasonable did the application process feel for the amount of funding you were applying for?”
Unsuccessful applicants
Fundees 50%
Very reasonable
20%
Very reasonable
59%
17%
42%
Quite reasonable
56%
Quite reasonable
35%
Neither reasonable nor unreasonable
Quite unreasonable
51%
4% 3% 2%
Benchmark Average
13%
Neither reasonable nor unreasonable
17%
Fundees
8%
Quite unreasonable
1%
Very unreasonable
0%
9%
Very unreasonable
0%
Dont know
2% 2%
30
Base: 209 fundees & 349 unsuccessful applicants | Source: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation survey Sept-Oct 21, nfpResearch Base: ~ 2,700 applicants across 9 funders | Source: Grant maker benchmark, nfpResearch
1% 3%
Dont know
2% 3%
Benchmark Average Unsuccessful applicants
Average time taken for a decision to be made is the same as the benchmark “How long did it take for a decision to be made on your funding request?”
Fundees 5%
Under a month
Unsuccessful applicants
26%
44%
1 - 3 months 48%
31%
4 - 6 months 11%
4%
7 - 9 months 1%
3%
9 - 12 months 0%
1%
Over a year 0%
31
Base: 209 fundees & 348 unsuccessful applicants | Source: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation survey Sept-Oct 21, nfpResearch Base: ~ 5,900 applicants across 9 funders | Source: Grant maker benchmark, nfpResearch
Average decision time (in months): Esmée Fairbairn Foundation: 2.7 Benchmark 2.7
Fundees feel that the decision time is slightly slower than the benchmark Fundees Would you consider this to be…?
Unsuccessful applicants 16%
14%
Very quick
Very quick
19%
10% 42%
Quite quick
35%
Quite quick 32%
39%
34%
Neither quick nor slow
33%
33%
Neither quick nor slow
31% 11%
8%
Quite slow
Quite slow
8%
10%
Benchmark Average
1%
3% 1%
2%
Esmée Fairbairn Foundation
2%
Don't know 6%
32
Benchmark Average
Very slow
Very slow
Base: 209 fundees & 348 unsuccessful applicants | Source: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation survey Sept-Oct 21, nfpResearch Base: ~ 5,900 applicants across 9 funders | Source: Grant maker benchmark, nfpResearch
Esmée Fairbairn Foundation
3%
Don't know 9%
Many unsuccessful applicants had no contact with Esmée Fairbairn Foundation staff during the application process “How helpful were Esmée Fairbairn Foundation staff while making your application?”
Unsuccessful applicants
Fundees 79%
Very helpful
26%
Very helpful 12%
81%
24%
13%
Quite helpful
Quite helpful
19%
15%
Neither helpful nor unhelpful
4% 2% 0%
Quite unhelpful 0%
23%
Neither helpful nor unhelpful
Benchmark Average
44% 4%
Benchmark Average
Quite unhelpful 5%
Unsuccessful applicants
Fundees 0%
Very unhelpful
2%
Very unhelpful 4%
0% 4%
Don't know 2%
33
Base: 209 fundees & 347 unsuccessful applicants | Source: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation survey Sept-Oct 21, nfpResearch Base: ~ 4,900 applicants across 9 funders | Source: Grant maker benchmark, nfpResearch
21%
Don't know 17%
Discussing preapplication submission “It would have been good to talk through some of the choices with someone, we cover a range of sectors including social and environment and making those fundamental choices with a bit of guidance might have changed our outcome.”
Additional support during the application process
Other, Less than £50k, unsuccessful applicant
“A phone call at the beginning where you can put forward an idea with an honest answer about whether or not it would be something that EF would support would be very helpful. Other funding bodies do this, and it is such a useful thing, prevents everyone wasting time (funder and applicant).” Children and young people, £1m - £5m, unsuccessful applicant
34
Constructive feedback “We received very limited feedback on rejection, which could have helped us to have refined our thinking for future applications.” Arts, culture, heritage, £501k - £1m, unsuccessful applicant
Examples “Examples of successful and unsuccessful funding applications, anonymised, with feedback as to why successful/unsuccessful.” Children and young people, £1m - £5m, unsuccessful applicant
Longer EOI “The ability to add (in limited words) additional information that we felt would be useful to contextualising our application.” Arts, culture, heritage, £101k - £250k, unsuccessful applicant
Webinars “A general webinar support meeting about the new funding criteria with questions […] would be very useful.” Arts, culture, heritage, £101k - £250k, unsuccessful applicant
“Was there any additional support that Esmée Fairbairn Foundation could have provided to help you with the application process? If so, what would this support have looked like?” Base: 209 fundees & 349 unsuccessful applicants | Source: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation survey Sept-Oct 21, nfpResearch
Fundee perceptions
35
Three-quarters of fundees received funding of over £100k
“What is the value of the funding in total over its lifetime?”
Less than £20k
2%
£20 - 60k
£60 - 100k
£100k - £150k
£150 - 200k
Over £200k
36
Base: 209 fundees | Source: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation survey Sept-Oct 21, nfpResearch
15%
9%
27%
22%
25%
Fundees are very positive about Esmée Fairbairn Foundation’s approachability and understanding of them “When you think about your experience of applying for and getting funding from Esmée Fairbairn Foundation, how would you say they compare with other grantmakers?”
Much better
Better
About the same
Worse
Approachability of Esmée Fairbairn Foundation overall
38%
Information about funding and application process
37
37%
19%
The speed of decision
11%
How long it takes to make an application
12%
Base: 209 fundees | Source: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation survey Sept-Oct 21, nfpResearch
39%
22%
24%
4%
24%
6%
29%
5%
32%
39% 30%
4%
26%
34%
25%
Restrictiveness of funding programmes
17%
45%
33%
Appropriate monitoring
15%
46%
24%
Treating us as partners
Don't know / Not sure 42%
32%
Understanding us as fundees
The ease of the application process
Much worse
4% 5%
36% 47% 49%
4% 8% 4% 10%
5%
Esmée outperforms the benchmark in several key areas among fundees “When you think about your experience of applying for and getting funding from Esmée Fairbairn Foundation, how would you say they compare with other grantmakers?” Much better + Better
80% 78%
Approachability of Esmée Fairbairn Foundation overall
78%
Understanding us as fundees
66% 69%
Information about funding and application process
62% 68%
Treating us as partners
61% 65%
Appropriate monitoring
52%
46% 57% 60%
The ease of the application process
The speed of decision
How long it takes to make an application
38
Base: 209 fundees | Source: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation survey Sept-Oct 21, nfpResearch Base: ~ 3,900 applicants across 9 funders | Source: Grant maker benchmark, nfpResearch
Benchmark Average 59%
Restrictiveness of funding programmes
41% 52% 37% 45%
Fundees
96% of fundees feel that Esmée Fairbairn Foundation understands their organisation and its aims “How well do you feel Esmée Fairbairn Foundation understands your organisation and its aims?”
53%
Very well 56%
40%
Quite well 40%
2%
Not very well 2%
0%
Not at all well 0%
5%
Don't know 2%
39
Base: 209 fundees | Source: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation survey Sept-Oct 21, nfpResearch Base: ~ 3,900 applicants across 9 funders | Source: Grant maker benchmark, nfpResearch
Benchmark Average Fundees
Most feel they have about the right amount of contact with Esmée Fairbairn Foundation, although 17% feel there is too little “As a fundee, how much contact do you have with Esmée Fairbairn Foundation?”
0%
Benchmark Average
0%
Fundees
Far too much
0%
A little bit too much 0% 85%
About the right amount 82% 8%
Too little 17% 1%
Far too little 0% 2%
Not sure 0%
40
Base: 209 fundees | Source: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation survey Sept-Oct 21, nfpResearch Base: ~ 3,900 applicants across 9 funders | Source: Grant maker benchmark, nfpResearch
94% found their Funding Manager helpful after they received funding “How helpful was the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation Funding Manager after you received your funding?”
“How helpful were other Esmée Fairbairn Foundation staff after you received your funding?”
Staff
Funding Manager
64%
Very helpful
74%
Very helpful 54% 20%
Quite helpful
19%
Quite helpful 19%
Neither helpful nor unhelpful
4%
7%
Neither helpful nor unhelpful
9% 0%
Quite unhelpful
0%
Benchmark Average
Quite unhelpful 0%
Fundees 0%
Very unhelpful
0%
Very unhelpful 0%
Don’t know
2%
Don’t know
9% 17%
41
Base: 206 fundees | Source: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation survey Sept-Oct 21, nfpResearch Base: ~ 4,900 applicants across 9 funders | Source: Grant maker benchmark, nfpResearch
Over 70% of fundees said they found the reporting back process ‘not very’ or ‘not at all’ difficult “How did you find the reporting back on the funding once it was awarded?”
0%
Very difficult 0%
7%
Somewhat difficult 9%
30%
Not very difficult 31%
Benchmark Average Fundees
32%
Not at all difficult 40%
28%
We are still to report back 19%
3%
Don't know 1%
42
Base: 209 fundees | Source: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation survey Sept-Oct 21, nfpResearch Base: ~ 3,900 applicants across 9 funders | Source: Grant maker benchmark, nfpResearch
Use of other existing reports
Straightforward process
“We have been asked to submit our annual impact report which means reporting on our core grant does not create lots of additional work for our team. We really appreciate that.”
“The reporting process is quite straightforward annual progress reports plus follow-ups from the grant officer were useful for us to reflect on progress and how we might change things, but not onerous.”
Social change, £1m - £5m, fundee
How did you find the reporting back on the grant once it was awarded?
“The reporting process allowed us to use a report we had written for another funder, and then add to this according to the original aims we supplied within our application. These aims were clearly set out within the report which made it much easier and quicker to complete than it would have otherwise.”
“The template is very simple and straight forward and all communication about expected deadlines and payment schedules is well communicated via emails.” Environment, £5m-£10m, fundee
Social change, £1m - £5m, fundee
Flexible approach
Too minimal?
“Being able to report in any format enabled us to speed up our reporting process. Concentrating on the details of the report not spending time editing formats. This enabled us to spend vital time elsewhere.”
“The reporting is very straightforward {...} I appreciate the considerate and flexible approach to reporting. My only concern is that the reporting is fairly minimal, so could be combined more with phone calls or meetings to provide a Q&A opportunity.”
Arts, culture, heritage, £101k-£250k, fundee
43
Food, £101k - £250k, fundee
“Please explain why you chose this answer:” Base: 209 fundees | Source: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation survey Sept-Oct 21, nfpResearch
Children and young people, £5m-£10m, fundee
Over a third of fundees accessed Funding Plus and found it helpful – a further quarter plan to access it in future “Has your organisation accessed Esmée Fairbairn Foundation’s Funding Plus offer during the period of your funding?”
Yes and it was helpful
Yes but it wasn’t very helpful
35%
1%
No because we didn’t need to
17%
No because we were not eligible
3%
No and we would have found it helpful
3%
We have not accessed it yet but plan to do so in the future
Can’t remember / Not sure
44
Base: 208 fundees | Source: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation survey Sept-Oct 21, nfpResearch
24%
17%
Over a third of fundees accessed Funding Plus and found it helpful – a further quarter plan to access it in future
45
Business development
Easy application
“[Funding Plus] enables us to develop a business plan with the assistance of external consultants. It transformed our ambition at that time and has been a foundation stone on which we have been able to grow our organisation to achieve much more social impact.”
“We were well supported in discussing the possibility of applying for it and in the process. The process itself was well organised and not too extensive. The funding has helped us remodel our communications (to be launched very soon) to better engage our target audiences.”
Arts, culture, heritage, £251k - £500k, fundee
Social change, £501k - £1m, fundee
Some lack of awareness
“I didn't know additional funding from Esmée Fairbairn Funding Plus options were available.” Arts, culture, heritage, £501k - £1m, fundee
“Has your organisation accessed Esmée Fairbairn Foundation’s Funding Plus offer during the period of your funding? Please explain why you chose this answer:” Base: 209 fundees | Source: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation survey Sept-Oct 21, nfpResearch
Unsuccessful applicant perceptions
46
Esmée is on par with the benchmark in terms of clarity on why the application was declined “Was it clear why Esmée Fairbairn Foundation declined your application?”
13%
Very clear 12% 26%
Quite clear 27% 19%
Neither clear nor unclear 23%
Unsuccessful applicants
15%
Quite unclear 19% 22%
Very unclear 16%
5%
Dont know 3%
47
Base: 349 unsuccessful applicants | Source: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation survey Sept-Oct 21, nfpResearch Base: ~ 2,300 applicants across 9 funders | Source: Grant maker benchmark, nfpResearch
Benchmark Average
40% of unsuccessful applicants feel Esmée is ‘worse’ or ‘much worse’ than other funders when it comes to understanding them as applicants “When you think about your experience of applying for and NOT getting funding from Esmée Fairbairn Foundation how would you say they compare with other grantmakers?”
Much better
Better
About the same
The speed of decision
12%
5%
Information about funding and application process
6%
22%
How long it takes to make an application
5%
23%
Approachability of Esmée Fairbairn Foundation overall
5%
16%
Treating us with respect
5%
16%
Understanding us as an applicant
Base: 347 unsuccessful applicants | Source: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation survey Sept-Oct 21, nfpResearch
10%
8%
Much worse
35%
The ease of the application process
Restrictiveness of funding programmes
48
Worse
Don't know / Not sure
8%
40%
26%
14%
52%
9%
60%
10%
56%
21%
38%
12%
10%
62%
27%
47%
40%
7%
29%
8%
11%
6%
6%
10%
Esmée underperforms the benchmark in terms of overall approachability and understanding for unsuccessful applicants “When you think about your experience of applying for and NOT getting funding from Esmée Fairbairn Foundation how would you say they compare with other grantmakers?”
43%
The speed of decision
48% 30%
The ease of the application process
31% 33%
Information about funding and application process
28%
Much better + Better
30%
How long it takes to make an application
27% 33%
Approachability of Esmée Fairbairn Foundation overall
21% 28%
Treating us with respect
Restrictiveness of funding programmes
Understanding us as an applicant
49
Base: 347 unsuccessful applicants | Source: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation survey Sept-Oct 21, nfpResearch Base: ~ 2,500 applicants across 9 funders | Source: Grant maker benchmark, nfpResearch
21% 15% 11% 18% 10%
Benchmark Average
Unsuccessful applicants
Unsuccessful applicants are more likely to say feedback wasn’t useful compared to the benchmark “Did you receive any feedback on why your proposal was unsuccessful?”
20%
Yes and it was useful 17%
20%
Yes but it wasn't very useful 26%
8%
Benchmark Average
No but that was OK
Unsuccessful applicants
13%
45%
No and I would have found it useful 36%
7%
Can't remember / Not sure 9%
50
Base: 347 unsuccessful applicants | Source: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation survey Sept-Oct 21, nfpResearch Base: ~ 2,100 applicants across 9 funders | Source: Grant maker benchmark, nfpResearch
There is clear appetite for feedback from those turned down at the first stage “Did you receive any feedback on why your proposal was unsuccessful? / At which stage was your application turned down?”
16%
Yes and it was useful 27%
26%
Yes but it wasn't very useful 42%
12%
Turned down at first stage
No but that was OK
Turned down at second stage
12%
38%
No and I would have found it useful 12%
8%
Can't remember / Not sure 8%
51
Base: 349 unsuccessful applicants | Source: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation survey Sept-Oct 21, nfpResearch
Require more detail “Email just stated that our proposal was not deemed 'right fit for current strategy'. Qualifying that statement would have been helpful, e.g., which impact goals we were not aligned to.” Disability, £5m-£10m, unsuccessful applicant
Felt too generic
Views on feedback received by unsuccessful applicants
“The feedback said our application lacked sufficient detail but with the limited word count for expressions of interest it's pretty difficult to go into any detail. It felt like a generic feedback rather than specific to our application.” Arts, culture, heritage, £501k - £1m, unsuccessful applicant
Specific and clear “It was useful to hear first-hand the reasons for rejection[…].The feedback helps us when looking at future funding from Esmée Fairbairn and we will not apply again until we truly believe we can meet the areas highlighted.” Social change, £10m - £50m, unsuccessful applicant
52
“Did you receive any feedback on why your proposal was unsuccessful? Please explain why you chose this answer:” Base: 349 unsuccessful applicants | Source: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation survey Sept-Oct 21, nfpResearch
Scored against criteria “The most useful feedback is to understand how we scored against assessment criteria […]. That helps us understand whether it was the wrong idea, or we simply didn't make a good job of explaining it.” Social change, £10m - £50m, unsuccessful applicant
Advice on improvements
What useful feedback looks like
“Reasons for why it was rejected. Advice around whether it could be re-worked and how. For example, applications to the National Lottery Fund tend to be followed up with some in person feedback from a grant officer, including advice about how to improve the application in the future.” Social change, £10m - £50m, unsuccessful applicant
Outlines strengths & weaknesses “Areas of weakness – e.g., 'not enough detail on how you would disseminate findings from your project'; 'more detail of how to measure the training goals' Areas of strength – e.g., 'good detail of budget'; clear map of key steps.’” Disability, £5m - £10m, unsuccessful applicant
53
“Please tell us what useful feedback looks like for you, including examples of useful feedback you’ve received from other funders:” Base: 349 unsuccessful applicants | Source: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation survey Sept-Oct 21, nfpResearch
Role and key values
54
What words or phrases come to mind when you think of Esmée Fairbairn Foundation? successful
Enabling Esmée restrictive applying people unapproachable
Partnership help
Collaborative
creative thoughtful accessible making forward-thinking
engaged
Strategic
understanding get support changekind funderwork established clear arts Progressive grant
great distant respected good interested social Large new past needs
long
ethical
UK
supportivefund open
charities trusting
Visionary grants
generous justice understand
impact
difficult one flexible innovative EFF
sector focused remote
forward thinking
partner time
Committed helpful funding hard community supporting core Approachable responsive Fair Big
professional application
apply
transparent opaque
important
charity competitive
55
risk
friendly
funders organisations projects Foundation
organisation process frustrating
small positive need
Base: 209 fundees & 349 unsuccessful applicants | Source: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation survey Sept-Oct 21, nfpResearch
environment Fairness
environmental
rather
Fundees have a much clearer understanding of Esmée Fairbairn Foundation’s values; unsuccessful applicants are less likely to see the Foundation as collaborative “To what extent do you associate the following values with Esmée Fairbairn Foundation?”
Strongly associate + Somewhat associate
74%
96%
Is equitable - strives for fair opportunities and outcomes for the people they work with
Is kind - shows empathy and consideration in how they treat people
Is ambitious - uses the opportunity of their endowment to be bold, proactive, and take risks
Works together - shows respect, empathy and humility in collaborating with others
56
98%
Has integrity - acts with honesty, transparency and accountability
Base: 205 fundees & 329 unsuccessful applicants | Source: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation survey Sept-Oct 21, nfpResearch
70%
94%
Fundees Unsuccessful applicants
65%
94% 63%
95% 59%
What does Esmée Fairbairn Foundation do well?
Supportive and responsive
Excellent staff
“Listens to organisations, supports them with what they need, trusts in their vision and approach and invests over the long term.”
“I have found the staff at every level approachable, thoughtful and genuinely interested in front line reality. You feel like more of a collaborator in a shared endeavour than simply a grant recipient delivering outputs.“
Children and young people, £1m - £5m, fundee
Social change, £101k - £250k, fundee
Manageable application process
“They are aware of the time and effort required to submit an application form and are open and honest from first point of information on how likely or unlikely application will be successful. This combined with an easy EOI for makes them someone easy to apply to.” Children and young people, £101k - £250k, unsuccessful applicant
57
Base: 209 fundees & 349 unsuccessful applicants | Source: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation survey Sept-Oct 21, nfpResearch
More specific feedback
More engagement with fundees
“More applicant specific feedback, rather than insert a select box answer 'not a fit with strategy', 'too many applications'... that way the charity can learn from the process of applying.”
“Found it hard to discuss and engage with our grant manager since changes in 2020. We'd like a more collaborative relationship.” Social change, £251k - £500k, fundee
Social change, £1m - £5m, unsuccessful applicant
Where might Esmée Fairbairn Foundation need to improve?
Restrictive application process “The EOI is extremely restrictive with 100 words to right your project description. I appreciate that the Foundation receives many requests, but it is pretty impossible to convey much in that tight word count.” Higher Education, Above £50m, unsuccessful applicant
58
Base: 209 fundees & 349 unsuccessful applicants | Source: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation survey Sept-Oct 21, nfpResearch
Frequently mentioned organisations who Esmée Fairbairn Foundation could learn from
59
National Lottery – all mentions
27
Lankelly Chase Foundation
5
Paul Hamlyn Foundation
21
ACE
4
Lloyds Bank Foundation
15
Foyle Foundation
4
Tudor Trust
12
John Lyon’s Charity
4
City Bridge Trust
11
Joseph Rowntree
4
Garfield Weston Foundation
11
People’s Postcode Lottery
4
John Ellerman Foundation
11
Jerwood Arts
3
Henry Smith Charity
10
Oak Foundation
3
Art Council England
9
Robertson Trust
3
Trust for London
6
Comic Relief
2
Community Foundations
5
Mercers
2
Children in Need
5
Youth Music
2
“Are there any other grant-makers who you think Esmée Fairbairn Foundation could learn from? In what way?” Base: 209 fundees & 349 unsuccessful applicants | Source: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation survey Sept-Oct 21, nfpResearch
National Lottery Community Fund: “National Lottery are fantastic in their approach. They have started doing evaluation and monitoring conversations as opposed to us spending hours reporting on a form.” Social change, £101k - £250k, fundee
Paul Hamlyn Foundation:
Other grant-makers who Esmée Fairbairn Foundation could learn from
“Paul Hamlyn Foundation - they communicate so well with you, even when you aren't successful. It is clear communication outlining exactly why and actually our latest bid was great, it was just they wanted to focus more on a different niche - I love their honesty.” Children & young people, £501k £1m, unsuccessful applicant
Lloyds Bank Foundation: “Lloyds Foundation are the best funders we work with, the size of their grant is not huge but the extra support they give is amazing.” Social change, £501k - £1m, unsuccessful applicant
60
“Are there any other grant-makers who you think Esmée Fairbairn Foundation could learn from? In what way?” Base: 209 fundees & 349 unsuccessful applicants | Source: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation survey Sept-Oct 21, nfpResearch
Collaboration & engagement with other funders “By advocating your approach to other funders, especially the ease of online application submission and reporting; flexibility in reporting; the importance of providing core funding; and clear strategic priorities.” Arts, culture, heritage, £1m - £5m, fundee
More engagement with funded organisations
How else could Esmée Fairbairn Foundation better support you or the wider sector?
“Organise to have a check in and maybe understand how the programme is developing and perhaps offer support in the form of available resources and experiences of other grantees.” Environment, £1m - £5m, fundee
Webinars and workshops “I found your webinar regarding your funding priorities and processes most helpful. It is really appreciated being able to see the people behind the decisions, to hear answers to questions posed and to see that we are not isolated, we are supported and informed. More events like this would be really helpful.” Social change, £1m - £5m, unsuccessful applicant
61
Base: 209 fundees & 349 unsuccessful applicants | Source: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation survey Sept-Oct 21, nfpResearch
Phase 2: interviews with applicants
62
Phase 2: Methodology nfpResearch conducted 10 interviews by telephone/Teams between 24th March and 12th April 2022 In October/November 2021 participants had previously completed an online survey about their experience of applying for funding from Esmée Fairbairn Foundation and agreed to be contacted for a follow-up interview The discussion guide was drafted and approved in collaboration with Esmée Fairbairn Foundation Interview conversations lasted around 30 minutes Interviewees were assured confidentiality at the outset, and the majority asked to remain anonymous in our reporting
63
Phase 2: Research objectives 1.
2.
64
To develop a deeper understanding fundees’ and unsuccessful applicants’ experiences of applying for funding from Esmée Fairbairn Foundation To understand what they think about the application process, with a particular focus on what they consider to be proportionate and reasonable; the importance of providing the space to convey an accurate picture of their organisation; if and how guidance from Esmée Fairbairn Foundation could be clearer; any barriers encountered (and how these were overcome by fundees)
3.
Among fundees: to understand how they feel about their relationship with Esmée Fairbairn Foundation and any ways it could be improved
4.
Among unsuccessful applicants: to understand how they felt about any feedback they received and whether they would apply for funding from Esmée Fairbairn Foundation again
5.
To understand the values that fundees and unsuccessful applicants associate with Esmée Fairbairn Foundation and any understanding of Esmée Fairbairn Foundation’s current strategy
Phase 2: Profile of participants Sample Status of most recent application Fundees
3 grantees + 1 investee
Unsuccessful applicants
6 unsuccessful applicants
Sector Our Natural World (environment)
1 fundee + 2 unsuccessful applicants
Creative, confident communities (social change)
1 fundee + 2 unsuccessful applicants
A Fairer Future (arts; children & young people)
2 fundees + 2 unsuccessful applicants
Income Less than £100k
2 unsuccessful applicants
£101k - £1m
1 fundee + 1 unsuccessful applicant
£1m - £5m
3 fundees + 2 unsuccessful applicants
Above £5m
1 unsuccessful applicant
Mission of organisation (DEI) To support communities experiencing racial inequity and/or disabled people 65
1 fundee + 3 unsuccessful applicants
Phase 2: Key findings •
Unsuccessful applicants are very disappointed and frustrated about being turned down for funding, particularly due to the nature of the EOI stage. It’s clear to applicants that Esmée Fairbairn Foundation has adopted the short EOI in an attempt to streamline the process. However, while the Foundation is taking a light touch approach to it’s applicants, those applicants are not being light touch in their approach towards the Foundation – they continue to put much time and effort into their applications. Unsuccessful applicants are seeking more human contact, better transparency about what is done with the information collected, and alternative ways to get a foot in the door – they desperately want to work with Esmée Fairbairn Foundation.
•
It’s widely acknowledged that funding is becoming harder to obtain, especially funding of the nature that Esmée Fairbairn Foundation provides. The need in the sector is growing and there is the perception Esmée Fairbairn Foundation is also reducing the scope of what it funds. This puts the Foundation in a difficult position, they are operating in the game of disappointment yet applicants are always seeking more from a funder of its calibre (particularly more money).
•
Nevertheless, Esmée Fairbairn Foundation remains hugely respected and highly regarded by both fundees and unsuccessful applicants, and both have strong recognition of the Foundation’s values. Esmée Fairbairn Foundation is having very positive impact with its fundees, who say the relationship is among the best they have with any funder, and that the long term nature of this relationship is especially crucial. Despite disappointment among unsuccessful applicants, they aren’t necessarily bitter. They still recognise Esmée Fairbairn Foundation’s values and retain a positive overall impression. However, many do feel discouraged to apply for funding again. This may have longer term implications for attracting applicants and the Foundation’s overall reputation.
66
The application process
67
Overall impressions of the application process Perceptions ranged from clear and reasonable, to challenging and restrictive Unsuccessful applicants: •
Felt they lack understanding of what it is Esmée Fairbairn Foundation are looking for
•
Often found it impossible to convey what they do in such a limited number of words, and even more so when dealing with a complex project area
•
Some appreciate that the Foundation has streamlined the process and are trying to reduce the burden on applicants
•
Highlight the absence of any opportunity for conversation or dialogue
Fundees: •
Felt that there was a great deal of mutual understanding
•
The process is straightforward and non-bureaucratic
•
Feel that the Foundation respects their integrity and focuses on ideas and potential rather than putting organisations in a box
68
“There’s no way you can convey what you do in that number of words.” Unsuccessful applicant
Interviewees appreciated the EOI in principle, but found it difficult to complete
69
“I think it’s great that you can streamline things and just put something in very quickly, but equally there’s not a lot you can say, that’s my frustration with putting in an expression of interest, you’ve got a couple of hundred words and I don’t think when you’ve got an organisation that actually could be contributing towards the aims there’s not much to say about that.” Unsuccessful applicant
“It’s been challenging in its own way because it’s so little words, […] now what can you say about a project in a hundred words? In my opinion it should be slightly longer, but it’s still a much better process that you are not investing so much time, but I am slightly concerned that I am not conveying the essence of a quite a detailed complicated project in a hundred words for them to make a decision on, but that is what it is.” Unsuccessful applicant “We found it really challenging to say what we wanted to say in the small amount of words allowed. We managed it. And having done that, it was great because, as I say, you get the yes or no, we’re interested or we’re not interested, quite quickly and without too much work having gone into it from our side.” Fundee
Clarity of guidance for applicants •
Many interviewees said they found Esmée Fairbairn Foundation’s website, guidance, and particularly the webinars very helpful when making their application
•
Interviewees said that online guidance can never replicate the usefulness of being able to ask questions to a human being
•
However, one unsuccessful applicant experienced some difficulty navigating the website, feeling there were too many pages and resources to consult and keep track of
•
Another unsuccessful applicant felt the guidance was unclear and they couldn’t see where they went wrong in their application
70
“I thought it was really good, it was really clear, it was really transparent. I don’t think I would have been quite so clear however if it hadn’t have been for the webinars. I thought they were excellent.” Unsuccessful applicant
Generally the guidance is seen as clear & transparent, although one applicant found it hard to navigate
71
“I mean some funders are very secretive, [EFF has] always been a funder that’s been that’s been quite transparent in their objectives and they’ve got a good website, you can research it, you can pull off all the criteria. In that respect I think it’s always been clear.” Unsuccessful applicant “I didn’t see where I was going wrong with the guidance, so it really concerned me [and] I thought if the guidance had been clear we would have done a better application. I felt that you were jumping about through pages so you were losing the page you were on and I was finding it hard to find information and when you were sort of trying to write things you were having to go through loads of pages to pull information together and that’s really difficult when you’re trying to pull an application together.” Unsuccessful applicant
Proportionality of the application process • Most applicants spent a number of weeks working on their applications, and while fundees felt that the process was reasonable and proportionate, for some unsuccessful applicants it was onerous • A number of applicants acknowledged that they spent the same amount of time on the EOI as they would in producing a two-page application – particularly spending lots of time distilling down and perfecting the content • One interviewee said that for bigger funders they will spend as much time thinking about the application and planning irrespective of the format: “you want to make sure that you capture the nuances of that particular funder accurately and so that you really convey it in the way that they think it’s going to meet their ambitions.” 72
“Even though it was quick to write the EOI […] we had lots of [internal] conversations to check that this was really within scope of the ambitions of their programme. I think overall [EOI is] better. [Although] you invest just as much thinking and planning time as you would if you were submitting a full application.” Unsuccessful applicant
Applicants felt they made significant investments of their time
73
“It is really distilling down what are the things to say. So I think that was really hard, it is quite challenging. I think having a bit more space gives you that opportunity to do it without really having to spend a lot of time. I think it is nice in some ways it’s streamlined but equally it’s probably quite challenging especially for some organisations to get across their work succinctly.” Unsuccessful applicant “Yes, I think it did [feel reasonable], because we were asking for £150,000 over three years, which was a significant grant for a [charity of our size]. So, it felt really important to put that amount of time in. […] You know, I’ve done a lot of similar levels of work for a lot less money. So, this felt quite proportionate, I’d say.” Fundee
Barriers experienced by applicants • The majority of interviewees didn’t name any particular barriers per se, saying they knew what was required and how to make their application • However, many felt the format of the application was limiting, as was the absence of opportunity for any conversation • One unsuccessful applicant with experience of applying for funding from Esmée Fairbairn Foundation in a previous role felt that there was more collaboration during the process while at that organisation due to a previous history of funding; they felt a barrier their current organisation faced was not having the same level of existing relationship
74
Who gets it right?
75
The ideal application process Interviewees broadly expressed a preference for shorter forms overall (between 1 and 4 pages); although usually just as much thinking and planning time is invested whether the process requires 200 words or several pages
Restrictive word counts can be both a help and a hindrance. Templates and forms are useful, as is the ability to recycle parts from other applications Showing a willingness to help applicants and have a conversation is very important – the process can be a waste of time and resources for applicants otherwise The opportunity for an initial telephone conversation, and later an opportunity to talk through the application’s strengths and weaknesses is also seen as beneficial
76
“They tend to be followed up with a conversation and some one-to-one engagement, which in that they will always say there’s no guarantee of success, blah, blah, blah, but you can normally pick up from people whether or not [you] have some chance of success, but you get none of that with [Esmée].” Unsuccessful applicant
The ideal application process
“We work with other funders like the Lottery and I found that they’ve been working really closely with us in a partnership way when we’ve been doing applications so rather than just sort of receive an application and give a bit of feedback, the Lottery will work with you, they’ll help you develop your application. They’ll, you know, make sure it’s the right application before you put it in.” Unsuccessful applicant “[Two stage applications are the ideal]. Other funders have two stage applications where you actually do end up having to do the full proposal at the stage one, because of the kind of level of detail they expect. Whereas with Esmée, they just want the idea and so you do have to do more work than just having an idea, but the information is that you need to provide is not so detailed that you end up basically writing the full application anyway. So, I think they get it about right. And I suppose the word count thing I mentioned is just the price you pay for that.” Fundee
77
Positive experiences with other funders (1)
PHF
78
“[With 2-page applications] you feel like you get down the absolute essence of what you’re planning to do, why it’s going to be right for your communities. Then if you’re unsuccessful, Paul Hamlyn gave feedback so you have a better idea of where it was slightly lacking. [With John Ellerman] I did query and I had an email conversation with their grants officer and it was like right okay, now I understand.”
.
NLCF
“It would be nice if there was more of [an opportunity for human connection with] some funders, I am working with Wolfson right now and we’ve got through to stage two and they are really helping me with the stage two side of things, they are coaching me in how to apply.”
“We’ve recently reapplied to the National Lottery Community Fund. For the first time ever, they’ve taken a video application, not as an extra, but as the application. And for [us] in terms of getting [across] authentic voices, ideas and the vibe of who we are [it has been hugely refreshing].”
Positive experiences with other funders (2)
79
“There’s an application that you fill in but there’s also a project plan. […] pulling together that project plan is really, really helpful […] it was a good learning process because it made me realise we’ve now got application on the shelf that we can go to look for other funding for because we’ve done the work to bring the application together and that’s really useful I think.”
“I quite like Garfield Weston’s approach because they are very open, they are just like here’s what we think you should put in but present it how you want. It’s a one stage process and it is up to 10 pages. […] it gives the organisation a chance to actually develop a case for support in our own way but while also still demonstrating how we meet the funder’s needs.”
“Where a funder doesn’t become obsessed with funding you to deliver a set of outcomes, but they actually fund you to innovate, and they fund you to take risks and they fund you to do new things. […] that was very much our experience [with] Wellcome, where we ended up doing some incredible work that we could never possibly have imagined that we were going to do at the beginning.”
Learning and reflecting
80
Unsuccessful applicants’ thoughts on feedback •
Most unsuccessful applicants didn’t receive any feedback that felt meaningful to them, most reported a generic rejection with statements about priorities not aligning and how oversubscribed Esmée Fairbairn Foundation are – generally this was not seen as helpful
•
Unsuccessful applicants emphasise that feedback is like gold dust and is always a useful learning experience – particularly just knowing whether it is worth trying again or if they did something wrong
•
Many unsuccessful applicants appreciate individual feedback isn’t always feasible, but also acknowledge that it must be virtually impossible to provide feedback on a 100- or 200-word application
•
Overall, there is a lack of clarity on the reasons for rejection. Interviewees said if they knew it was just about the volume of applications they might try again. If it was, for example, a need for better understanding of communities, this would have also been helpful to know
81
“I suppose if it was just about volume of applications then I might have thought oh well I’ll try again. If it was you couldn’t demonstrate that you truly understood your communities, that would have helped because then I would have thought oh okay it’s a pilot, we’ll wait a year and then we will have a better understanding of our communities, I’ll try again.” Unsuccessful applicant
Feedback and clarity on reason for rejection is crucial for unsuccessful applicants
82
“It was very vague and more around, we get hundreds of applications, you know, we can’t really go into detail and all that kind of thing. [Interviewer: do you think it’s difficult for Esmée to provide feedback based on the 100/200 EOI?] Well it’s virtually impossible to be honest. I mean to be fair to them I don’t think it gives them great opportunity to provide that feedback.” Unsuccessful applicant “If they are the trailblazer then you know taking a good fundraiser’s lead on this it’s all about donor relations and I know they are not actually giving to us yet but it’s still stewardship of relations isn’t it.” Unsuccessful applicant “The practical impact of the work wasn’t strong enough and it did not focus too much on funding priorities […] I felt like it kind of did but also I felt like that could’ve been a conversation and then you know, I wouldn't have bothered [knowing the project wasn’t at the right stage]. I mean, at least we got feedback.” Unsuccessful applicant
Would unsuccessful applicants apply again? Of our 6 interviewees, 2 would apply again, 2 wouldn’t consider it and 2 remain undecided One applicant felt Esmée Fairbairn Foundation were ‘too tough to crack’, and as the only person working on fundraising at their charity, they didn’t have the time to try again with so much uncertainty surrounding the previous rejection Another said they would keep trying as there are limited opportunities for large multi-year grants, making this type of funding hugely valuable Others would like to know more about the assessment processes and better understand what the Foundation are looking for before trying again: “Other similar funders are taking a real interest in our work now and I am not even sure whether to reapply to Esmée or not as it’s all a bit opaque what they’re ‘really’ looking for.”
For the majority of unsuccessful applicants, having no idea if they were on the right track or whether should try again in future was often cited as the most disappointing thing about being turned down Another disappointing factor was being turned down even though they feel they closely match what the Foundation are looking for – they don’t just want any funder but one that aligns with their ethics and values 83
“I probably will but just not now. I don’t feel confident that it would land with them because I don’t really know what they are looking for or I wonder if they are looking for people that are really pushing the boundaries of community engagement in a way that I think we are about, we are doing high quality work but whether it is as developmental as they are looking for. Obviously again it would be good to know. But then that kind of implies that there’s a judgement around what they think is fundable or not and that doesn’t come over in the criteria I would say.” Unsuccessful applicant
Mixed views from unsuccessful applicants on whether they would apply again
“I'm just not going to bother applying again. I might look if we sort of get desperate but there's other places that I can go to for our project. [I appreciate] they’ve got lots to fund, they don't have to fund everything. Which seems a shame because I think they are a really interesting funder and I've been to some of their events and met people who I would say work from grassroots projects like the ones I do now and I remember thinking they got funding, this is a great relationship for them and thinking it's a shame. […] Perhaps in the future but it's not a priority right now, it's too tough to crack really, I've got other things to do with my time because I'm only one person as well.” Unsuccessful applicant “No, I don’t think so. I mean, like, not unless they drastically changed the way they do things.” Unsuccessful applicant
84
Fundees on what contributed to their success •
Like many unsuccessful applicants, fundees felt there was an alignment of values and objectives, and for them this assumption was validated by their successful application
•
One fundee highlighted that they felt their charity’s stage of development played a big role in their success – the timing of their application offered an opportunity for Esmée Fairbairn Foundation to play a pivotal role in their development
•
Another fundee felt the success of their application was due to their commitment to pursuing independent evaluation and gathering a robust evidence base for their work
•
3 of the 4 interviewees had the opportunity to build relationships and have conversations with Esmée Fairbairn Foundation prior to making their application, through existing contacts or via informal meetings or networking
85
“I feel it was one of the applications where we could be honest, where we weren’t having to say what we think they wanted us to, what they wanted to hear. So I guess from my perspective, I would say they respect that kind of level of integrity.” Fundee
Fundees see strategic alignment as a key success factor
86
“I think part of it genuinely is that the Foundation is interested in the sector that we’re working in and also knowledgeable. And so, we were speaking to people who could understand what we were trying to say and understand the importance of the work. But also, I think just that, [Charity] is at a stage of development as a charity, I think probably a funder like Esmée could see the investment they could make at that stage, with core funding over three years, could be really sort of pivotal for the development of us as a charity.” Fundee “In their new strategy […] they have a very, very clear Natural World or conservation part of their strategic intent, so in that regard plus the fact that they have a strong ethos of people working in partnerships, so those two aspects, the Natural World plus the partnerships fits really closely with how [Charity] operates, […] and that’s enabled us to build quite a strong relationship over the years.” Fundee
Relationship and values
87
Fundees’ relationships with Esmée Fairbairn Foundation •
Fundees say their relationship with the Foundation feels honest and trusting, and they appreciate the flexibility shown on outcomes. Esmée Fairbairn Foundation are great at pushing and challenging fundees to get the best from themselves, recognising their potential and investing in their development; this investment taking place over the longer-term is crucial
•
Fundees report a positive level of interest and engagement from their funding managers, seeing them as committed and approachable with excellent communication
•
The Foundation is seen as a collaborative partner who is knowledgeable about the issues that fundees are working on and are able to ‘connect the dots’
•
One fundee said they would be open to more engagement and face to face meetings; while another highlighted how time is of the essence in their sector, and that there could always be more funding made available
88
“I guess from my perspective it’s always felt more of a two way street, which is what it should be because it’s not like funders have all the knowledge. […] I think sort of rebalancing relationships between fundees and funders and looking at partnership working […] but I do think it requires long term investment in these relationships, I think that’s really where the best results come from.” Fundee
Fundees’ spoke positively about their relationship with Esmée Fairbairn Foundation
89
“I think I’ve always found whenever I’ve met anyone from Esmée, I think they’ve been really receptive, very open, really listening, really helpful. I just, I think, reports are fine, you know obviously everyone needs to do reports, but sometimes meeting somebody and hearing as part of that reporting process, I think is more powerful. And I think also probably, you can really tell more if something really happening or if it’s just been written down on a piece of paper.” Fundee “We’re not bombarded by emails from Esmée, which is great. But then, for example we’ve had a couple of webinar events and we’d invite our grants manager to those, and I know that she’s signed up to that kind of thing. So, that feels positive that there’s that interest and engagement but [we’re] not bombarded with communications and requests and things.” Fundee
How applicants describe Esmée Fairbairn Foundation An innovative and flexible, yet oversubscribed funder •
A hugely valuable and reputable funder who is good at collaborating, especially in the environment space
•
An exciting funder that’s seeking to fund innovation and funding nationally important work
•
A champion for core funding
•
An ethical funder doing quality work and considering areas that are difficult to fund, but needs to improve processes
•
An inspiring and ambitious leader in the field, but hugely competitive and ‘impossibly difficult’ to get funding from
•
A forward-thinker whose approach is “we’re not a funder telling you what to do. We value you as an organisation and your expertise”
90
“They are a leader in their field, I think they are inspiring in what they do. Ambitious about what they do and how they are adapting to world needs or you know needs in this country right now. I feel [they are] impossibly difficult to get funding out of. I mean not just from me but talking to other fundraisers who’ve worked for other organisations, I mean someone I know really well, was just like oh God I just gave up in the end. I tried several times, never got anywhere, I suppose it’s hugely competitive because they are so well known.” Unsuccessful applicant
Despite their disappointment, unsuccessful applicants recognise Esmée Fairbairn Foundation’s strengths
91
“I’ve always felt they are a quite forward thinking funder. I think they have kind of, my experience having worked with them when I have had grants has been very much like we are not just the funder telling you what to do, we value you as an organisation and your expertise and I have a lot of faith and trust in the organisation that they fund. So I think that’s really good. It is less like a contract, it is more of a partnership I suppose and some funders are a bit more you are contractually obliged to do this.” Unsuccessful applicant “I’d say they are a large funder, they're probably one of the biggest private grant makers that I'm aware of and I think they do fund a lot of important work, I think they have a national reach which is good and they fund across a lot of different strands and I think they are seeking to fund stuff that is innovative. So yes, I think they're quite an exciting funder and an important funder for the charity sector as a whole.” Unsuccessful applicant
Understanding of values and current strategy Across both fundees and unsuccessful applicants Esmée Fairbairn Foundation is seen as a funder who is ambitious, equitable and operates with integrity One interviewee said that the Foundation have inclusivity at the heart of all it does
Interviewees said the Foundation shows great leadership and are generous in sharing knowledge and expertise Esmée Fairbairn Foundation champions social justice, equality and social progress Unsuccessful applicants found it difficult to recognise the Foundation as collaborative, mainly from their experience of not having the opportunity to work together Another unsuccessful applicant felt the Foundation could do more ‘working together’, expanding your presence in local communities (particularly in Scotland) and at virtual forums and events About half of interviewees were familiar with Esmée Fairbairn Foundation’s current strategy, and of those, all felt that the Foundation’s priorities were clearly defined and articulated
92
Esmée Fairbairn Foundation and nfpResearch would like to extend our warmest thanks to those applicants who participated in this research, and acknowledge the value and learning they have brought to the process. For questions about the research, please email: communications@esmeefairbairn.org.uk.
2-6 Tenter Ground Spitalfields London E1 7NH insight@nfpresearch.com +44 (0)20 7426 8888
Registered office: 2-6 Tenter Ground Spitalfields London E1 7NH. Registered in England No. 04387900. VAT Registration 839 8186 72