Applicant Perception Research: complete findings

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