The Mercers' Company's Perception Survey 2025

The Mercers’ Company Grantee and applicant perception research Final report August 2025

❖

Objectives, methodology and sample

❖

Key findings

Mercers’ findings ❖

Mercers’ seen as an approachable,

responsive and impactful funder ❖

Application process working well

❖

Strong relationships with clear communication

❖

Unsuccessful applicants would appreciate more tailored feedback

Sector findings ❖

Broader challenges and opportunities faced by applicants

❖

Suggestions for the sector on non-financial support

Table of contents

Objectives, methodology and sample

3

Objectives and methodology Objectives: 1.

To develop a deeper understanding of Mercers’ grantees and unsuccessful applicants’ experiences of applying for funding.

2.

To understand grantees and applicants’ relationship with Mercers’, through exploring key areas such as engagement, support, amount of contact and overall reputation.

3.

To explore perceptions of Funder Plus offers, looking specifically at engagement and areas of need.

4.

To explore perceptions of Mercers’ website, with a focus on accessibility.

5.

To understand how Mercers’ is perceived in comparison to other funders within the sector (using the nfpFunders benchmark – more information on next slide), in particular any areas for development when compared to peers.

Two-phase methodology: •

4

nfpResearch used a two-phase methodology to answer these objectives. The first phase was an online survey with Mercers’ grantees and unsuccessful applicants. The second phase was qualitative, consisting of 15 in-depth interviews with applicants who had taken the survey and had consented to being contacted for a follow up interview. There is more detail on the research phases and sample on the following slides.

Phase 1 methodology and nfpFunders benchmark Online survey of grantees and unsuccessful applicants 29th November – 3rd January 2025

Grantees

400

212

53%

Survey invites sent

Responses

Response rate

Unsuccessful applicants

701

157

22%

Survey invites sent

Responses

Response rate

• We have included the nfpFunders benchmark on some slides, based on research conducted with 15 other funding organisations since 2013.

• The sample size of the benchmark is approximately 13,000 applicants, although this varies according to the question asked.

Phase 2 in-depth interviews – methodology and sample

nfpResearch interviewed 15 grantees and unsuccessful applicants between 25th April and 14th May. The interview conversations lasted around 30-45 minutes and interviewees were assured confidentiality at the outset.

6

Number of participants

Demographic Relationship

Grantees Unsuccessful applicants

10 5

Income

£26k - £50k £51k - £100k £101k - £250k £251k - £500k £501k - £1m £1m - £5m £5m - £10m £10 - £50m

1 0 1 4 2 6 0 1

Sector

Church & Communities (C&C) Heritage & Arts (H&A) Older People & Housing (OP&A) Young People & Education (YP&E)

4 3 5 3

Disability led organisation

Yes No

4 11

Around 45% of grantees and unsuccessful applicants who took the online survey were first time applicants to Mercers’ Unsuccessful applicants

Grantees "Had you applied to Mercers’ previously?"

43%

No, this was our first application

38%

We have applied before and been unsuccessful

7%

We have received funding previously AND been unsuccessful before

7%

43%

We have applied before and been unsuccessful

13%

Mercers' Company

9%

Benchmark Average 37%

We have received funding previously

45%

No, this was our first application

We have received funding previously AND been unsuccessful before

20% 24% 11%↓ 11%

Benchmark Average 18%

We have received funding previously

17%

36%

1%

Other (please specify)

1%↑

Other (please specify) 2%

2%

4%

Not sure 3%

Source: Mercers' grantees and applicants survey Dec 2024 / Jan 2025 |Base: 0 to 953 respondents | Filters: Unsuccessful applicant Source: Mercers' grantees and applicants survey Dec 2024 / Jan 2025 |Base: 0 to 2437 respondents| Filters: Grantee

Mercers' Company

3%

Not sure 3%

Most applicants in the survey were in the Church & Communities programme. The Young People & Education programme had the biggest difference between the proportion of unsuccessful applicants and grantees in the sample "Which funding programme did you apply to for your most recent application?"

42%

Church & Communities 39%

4%

Heritage & Arts 4%

16%↑

Members’ Philanthropy

Grantee 0%↓

Unsuccessful applicant 22%

Older People & Housing 29%

15%↓

Young People & Education 28%↑

Source: Mercers' grantees and applicants survey Dec 2024 / Jan 2025 | Base: 0 to 212 respondents

Most unsuccessful applicants were turned down after the Expression of Interest phase) "At which stage was your application turned down?"

First stage - we were turned down at the Expression of Interest stage

Second stage - we submitted a detailed application and were turned down for funding

I don't know

Source: Mercers' grantees and applicants survey Dec 2024 / Jan 2025 |Base: 0 to 157 respondents

87%

8%

4%

Key findings

10

Key findings for Mercers’ 1.

Mercers’ is seen as an approachable, responsive and impactful funder

Grantees and unsuccessful applicants are broadly very positive in their perceptions of Mercers’. The most common associations with the Company are supportive, approachable and helpful. Grantees in particular score the Mercers’ highly on IVAR’s Open and Trusting Grant-making principles, especially on asking relevant questions (91%), communicating with purpose (87%) and not wasting applicants’ time (86%). Mercers’ is seen as a well-regarded and prestigious London funder, and securing a grant is viewed as a sign of credibility. Compared to the wider benchmark of other funders nfpResearch has worked with, Mercers’ performs strongly, particularly in its approachability, staff helpfulness and ease of the application process. However, for those without a prior relationship, the organisation can appear exclusive or hard to access.

The survey findings highlighted applicants were positive about how equitable, inclusive and accessible Mercers’ is as a funder. There was more uncertainty about how diverse the Mercers’ grantee portfolio is, which appears to be driven by a lack of knowledge.

2.

The application process is working well

The application process is widely seen as a strength. 85% of grantees rated it as excellent or very good, above the nfpFunders benchmark. Most applicants found the two-stage process helpful, with the Expression of Interest (EOI) stage saving time and providing early clarity. Over 75% of applicants felt the EOI decision was made quickly, and the process was generally seen as proportionate to the level of funding. While the process is clearly structured and accessible, applicants would benefit from clearer upfront guidance on what makes a strong EOI and when new funding opportunities will open. Some unsuccessful applicants found it unclear whether and when to reapply.

11

Key findings 3.

Strong relationships with grantees and clear communication

Grantees describe strong, trust-based relationships with the Mercers’ Company. 93% said the Mercers’ understands their aims, and 94% found their point of contact helpful after receiving funding. Many valued the approachable, human style of interaction, especially when supported by a named contact or project visit. Interviewees noted that visits and relationship-building were highly appreciated and contributed to a sense of partnership.

The Mercers’ website is generally seen as well-designed and easy to navigate. Applicants appreciated the inclusion of case studies and clear layout. However, some improvements could be made to accessibility, including font visibility, downloadable templates and clearer information about who to contact. One applicants also suggested an audio option to improve accessibility for those with additional needs.

4.

Unsuccessful applicants would appreciate more tailored feedback

Feedback is the most consistent area for improvement. Only a third of unsuccessful applicants understood why they were declined, which is below the nfpFunders benchmark. While most appreciated receiving any response, many said generic messages left them unsure about whether to reapply or how to improve. 87% of unsuccessful applicants said they would prefer personalised follow-up feedback by email. Interviewees recognised the time pressure funders face but highlighted that even short, targeted feedback, particularly around eligibility, would provide clarity and save time for both applicants and the Mercers’ team. Some suggested group Q&A sessions to explain common reasons for rejection.

12

Key findings for the sector 5.

The challenges and opportunities facing the charities Mercers’ works with

Applicants described a familiar set of challenges affecting their organisations: increased demand for services, a crowded funding environment, limited availability of unrestricted or multi-year funding and increased operational costs. Despite these pressures, applicants remain resilient and are actively exploring new approaches, including public sector commissioning, corporate partnerships and diversifying their services. Many spoke about the value of stable core funding and the need for funders to recognise quality delivery, not just innovation. Funders who show curiosity, offer flexibility and build longer-term relationships are seen as particularly helpful in navigating these conditions.

6.

Suggestions for the sector on non-financial support

Awareness of Funder Plus is low, with many applicants unfamiliar with the term, even when they had received non-financial support. Once explained, there was strong appetite and appreciation for this type of offer, especially in the current climate of rising demand and constrained budgets. Applicants value access to consultancy support, learning events, peer networking and leadership development. Examples of positive experiences on non-financial support from all funders include strategy development, legal advice and social media support. Charities emphasised that Funder Plus should be flexible and tailored - smaller organisations may struggle to engage with generic offers.

13

Mercers’ seen as an approachable, responsive and impactful funder

14

Grantees compare Mercers’ highly against other funders in the areas of approachability and treating as partners. Both grantees and UAs rate Mercers’ highly on the speed of the decision Unsuccessful applicants

Grantees

"When you think about your experience of applying for and getting a grant / not getting a grant with Mercers’, how would you say they compare with other funders?

Please indicate on the scale of 1-5 below how you think Mercers’ compares with other funders, where 1 is much worse and 5 is much better."

Much better + Better

To show:

Approachability of Mercers’ overall

81%↑

The ease of the application process

67%

33% 31%

51%↓ 30%

The ease of the application process

59%

Understanding us as grantees

30%

69%↑ 59% 65%↑

Treating us as partners

57% 66%↑

The speed of decision

56%

How long it takes to make an application

55%

Mercers' Company Benchmark Average

25%

Information about grants and application process

30%

Mercers' Company 25%

Treating us with respect

Benchmark Average

28% 32%

How long it takes to make an application

28%

49%

Appropriate grant monitoring Restrictiveness of grant programmes

43%

Approachability of Mercers' overall

62%

Information about grants and application process

59%↑

The speed of decision

74%

49%

48% 41% 44%

Source: Mercers' grantees and applicants survey Dec 2024 / Jan 2025 |Base: 0 to 2012 respondents Source: Grant maker benchmark, nfpResearch | Base: ~13,000 applicants across 15 funders

Understanding us as an applicant

13%

Restrictiveness of grant programmes

12%

18%

15%

Source: Mercers' grantees and applicants survey Dec 2024 / Jan 2025 |Base: 0 to 454 respondents Source: Grant maker benchmark, nfpResearch | Base: ~13,000 applicants across 15 funders

Grantees and unsuccessful applicants rate Mercers’ highly against its own impact indicators "Mercers’ aims to make a positive impact to the people and organisations it supports.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements:"

98%↑

Mercers’ funding is improving people’s lives 75%↓

90%↑

Mercers’ helps to strengthen organisations 56%↓

Grantee 90%↑

Mercers’ contributes to societal change 62%↓

94%↑

Mercers’ supports people to access opportunities that enable a balanced, rewarding and varied life 64%↓

Source: Mercers' grantees and applicants survey Dec 2024 / Jan 2025 |Base: 0 to 211 respondents

Unsuccessful applicant

What does Mercers’ do well?

Where might Mercers’ need to improve?

Generous and impactful funding

Improved feedback for unsuccessful applicants

✓ ✓

Respondents appreciate the substantial and unrestricted grants that are available demonstrating Mercers’ commitment to charities.

Multi-year grants provide stability and enables organisations to comfortably plan ahead.

Clear application process ✓

The process is considered straightforward and well-structured with clear guidelines.

Effective, transparent communication ✓

Having clear communication and a structured approach enhances Mercers’ transparency, and respondents felt this made it easier to engage effectively.

Genuine interest in causes ✓

Respondents appreciate the time taken to understand the work they do, and value staff visits at projects that have been funded.

❖

Unsuccessful applicants mentioned wanting more specific feedback, but acknowledged this would be time-consuming to do for every application.

❖

Mercers’ could provide feedback on whether future applications would be eligible or might be more successful.

More consistent communication of opportunities ❖

Ensuring diversity, inclusivity and accessibility ❖

Further diversity measures were proposed, including having diversity on decision-making committees as well as having a greater range of grant recipients from underrepresented groups or smaller organisations.

❖

Some also mentioned accessibility issues and wanted the process to be more accessible to those with additional needs.

Unrestricted and/or core funding ❖

Willing to listen and adapt ✓

The willingness of Mercers’ to listen and take on feedback from applicants to improve processes is highly regarded.

Some advocated for more frequent communication of information such as advance warning and reminders of when grant applications open.

While Mercers’ provides unrestricted and/or core funding in three of its programmes, some respondents suggested providing more unrestricted and core funding options or more flexible funding. They also mentioned a lack of awareness about Funder Plus.

Further grant management ❖

Some grantees discussed having a named grant manager and better relationships with funders, to allow them to demonstrate impact outside of reporting.

Supporting quotes for Mercers’ does well

Supporting quotes for where Mercers’ might improve

Generous and impactful funding

Improved feedback for unsuccessful applicants

✓

“Mercers' are great at understanding the importance of core, multi-year funding for organisations - this type of funding means that we can plan ahead and remain flexible in how we support, meeting changing needs as they emerge.”

✓

“Awarding multi-year grants indicates the level of commitment that the Mercers' has to its grantees.”

❖

More consistent communication of opportunities ❖

“Providing online seminars/Q&A's about funding opportunities 4-6 months in advance of deadlines.”

❖

“Be clear of when their may be opportunities of when we could apply for grants.”

Clear application process ✓

“Clear guidelines and application process compared to most funders.”

✓

“Its website is very clear and easy to navigate to find the information a prospective applicant needs. They support applicants through the entire process with webinars and additional tools… and are very approachable by email.”

Ensuring diversity, inclusivity and accessibility ❖

“Mercers' could improve by enhancing accessibility for smaller and diverse organisations… and increasing engagement with underrepresented groups to ensure more equitable opportunities.”

❖

“Make that information more accessible to applicants with additional needs.”

Effective, transparent communication ✓

“Mercers are very good at communications - including information on their website, feedback on grant applications and responding to emails / phone calls.”

Genuine interest in causes ✓

“Mercers get to know the communities and organisations they fund. Its not just completing and application form its about understanding the work we do and the impact we make to peoples lives.”

Unrestricted and/or core funding ❖

“They are really open to feedback from applicants, and take this on board to feed into their systems and processes.”

“Take a risk on charities not known to them with a more unrestricted funding stream.”

Further grant management ❖

“We'd like to get to know our grant officer better and feel more of a relationship.”

❖

“Make sure grantees have a named, accessible, friendly grant manager.”

Willing to listen and adapt ✓

“Providing feedback for expressions of interest - even if only 1 line specifically addressing the reason why the EoI has not been successful so organisations know whether they should apply again or not.”

Mercers’ reputation positively perceived in the in-depth interviews ✓ Mercers’ is seen as having a long-standing positive reputation as a big London funder. ✓ If an organisation can say they have received funding from Mercers’ it is seen as a seal of approval that they are good to work with. ✓ Those with funding from Mercers’ feel taken care of and that expectations related to the funding are clear.

❖ For those that have not received funding before, Mercers’ can be seen as selective, posh and impenetrable.

19

Prestige of being funded by Mercers’ “…to be funded by prestigious funds, it's important for us too, because it gives us a sort of a badge if you say that we are funded by a certain organisation. So to say that we're funded by the Mercers’ Company, it gives us sort of like a tick that we're also good to work with. So, it is a two-way street.”

Grantee, Heritage & Arts, £10m - £50m

Supportive of grantees “My view of them as a funder has not changed. If anything, it's got better because of working with them and the way it's worked and it’s been supportive. They're very careful in who they select or what they fund, but once they do that then I think they do everything they can to try to make that work and be supportive.”

Grantee, Older People & Housing, £1m - £5m

Grantees are significantly more likely to associate Mercers’ with positive words "What words or phrases come to mind when you think of Mercers'?"

40%↑

Supportive

14%↓ 18%↑

Helpful Generous Approachable Open

9%↓ 17%↑

8%↓ 18%↑

6%↓ 16%↑

6%↓ 10%

Philanthropy / philanthropic Friendly Understanding Fair / equitable Funder

Source: Mercers' grantees and applicants survey Dec 2024 / Jan 2025 |Base: 0 to 191 respondents

12%

Grantee Unsuccessful applicant

15%↑ 3%↓ 15%↑ 3%↓ 12% 7% 7% 9%

The top word for unsuccessful applicants was “Livery / Livery Company” at 16%

Against IVAR’s open and trusting grant-making principles Mercers’ is seen to ask relevant questions and not waste time Mercers’ aims to be a supportive, relational funder and has committed to IVAR’s Open and Trusting Grantmaking. To what extent do you agree with the following statements: Strongly agree + agree

86%↑

Mercers’ doesn’t waste time

67%↓ 91%↑

Mercers’ asks relevant questions

63%↓ 55%↑

Mercers’ acts with urgency

39%↓ 74%↑

Mercers’ is an open funder

41%↓

Grantee

Mercers’ is a flexible funder

70%↑

87%↑

Mercers’ communicates with purpose

50%↓ 77%↑

Mercers’ is proportionate

Mercers’ is a good example of a relational funder

Source: Mercers' grantees and applicants survey Dec 2024 / Jan 2025 |Base: 0 to 212 respondents

Unsuccessful applicant

23%↓

39%↓ 82%↑ 29%↓

Very high proportion of applicants see Mercers’ as accessible

“How inclusive do you think Mercers’ is to applicants and grantees?”

Accessibility

Inclusivity 39%

Very inclusive

“How accessible do you think Mercers’ is for applicants and grantees?"

40%

Very accessible 15%

18%

46%

34%

Quite accessible

Quite inclusive

56%

33% 2%

0%

Not very inclusive

Grantee 9%

Not very accessible

Unsuccessful applicant

Unsuccessful applicant

0%

0%

Not at all accessible

Not at all inclusive

3%

1% 26%

11%

Don’t know

Don’t know 39%

22

Grantee 10%

Source: Mercers' grantees and applicants survey Dec 2024 / Jan 2025 |Base: 0 to 212 respondents Source: Mercers' grantees and applicants survey Dec 2024 / Jan 2025 |Base: 0 to 210 respondents

17%

Nearly 50% of applicants are unsure whether the Mercers’ grantee portfolio is diverse “How diverse do you think Mercers’ grantee portfolio is?"

Diversity

Equitability 35%

15%

Very equitable

Very diverse

14%

9%

“How equitable do you think Mercers’ is as a funder?"

34%

40%

Quite equitable

Quite diverse

32%

36% 0%

2%

Not very diverse

Grantee 5%

Not very equitable

Unsuccessful applicant

Not at all equitable

Not at all diverse

1%

2% 44%

Don’t know 48%

Source: Mercers' grantees and applicants survey Dec 2024 / Jan 2025 |Base: 0 to 211 respondents Source: Mercers' grantees and applicants survey Dec 2024 / Jan 2025 |Base: 0 to 206 respondents

Unsuccessful applicant

0%

0%

23

Grantee 8%

30%

Don’t know 45%

Application process is working well

24

A very high proportion of grantees rate the application process as excellent or very good – higher than the benchmark Unsuccessful applicants

Grantees "How would you rate your experience of the application process?"

46%

Excellent

42% 39%

Very good

Good

OK

Poor

Not good at all

Don't know

Excellent

4% 7% 27%

Very good

19%

37% 10%

27%↓

Good

27%

13% 1% 5%

Mercers' Company

32%

OK

33%

Benchmark Average

0%

Poor

0% 0%

Not good at all

0% 3%↑ 2%

Source: Mercers' grantees and applicants survey Dec 2024 / Jan 2025 |Base: 0 to 953 respondents | Filters: Unsuccessful applicant Source: Mercers' grantees and applicants survey Dec 2024 / Jan 2025 |Base: 0 to 2437 respondents | Filters: Grantee

Don't know

4%↑ 8% 2% 3% 3%↑ 3%

Mercers' Company Benchmark Average

Majority of grantees and unsuccessful applicants found the twostage application process helpful “Is the two-stage application process, beginning with the Expression of Interest, helpful?"

49%↑

Very helpful 28%↓ 28%↓

Quite helpful 40%↑ 7%↓

Neither helpful nor unhelpful 16%↑

Grantee 1%↓

Unsuccessful applicant

Quite unhelpful 7%↑ 0%↓

Very unhelpful 3%↑

Don’t know

Source: Mercers' grantees and applicants survey Dec 2024 / Jan 2025 |Base: 0 to 205 respondents

Common themes •

•

Is the two-stage application process, beginning with the Expression of Interest, helpful?

Why do you say this?

215 comments

Many believe that the two-stage application process saves valuable time and resources for both the applicant and the funder This set up helps to give faster responses; however, some felt it was not enough space to thoroughly express their cause

“Having an expression of interest phase as part of the application process is helpful as a timesaving exercise - if you find out early that your project is not going to be eligible, it saves wasting hours on a full application.”

Very helpful, Unsuccessful applicant “It is helpful to begin with an EOI as it avoids spending hours and hours on an application which may turn out to not be of any interest. However it is sometimes challenging to give a full expression of the project / proposal at EOI stage (because of lack of space).”

“Efficiency: It allows Charites to screen applicants early, ensuring that only those who meet the basic criteria proceed to the next stage. This saves time and resources for both the applicants and the organization. Focus: Applicants can get a sense of whether they are a good fit for the opportunity before investing significant time and effort into a full application. Feedback: The EOI stage can provide valuable feedback to applicants, helping them understand what is expected and how they can improve their chances in the next stage. Resource Management: Organisations can better manage their resources by focusing on a smaller pool of qualified candidates in the later stages of the process.”

“EOI that is pretty straightforward helps give you a steer.

The second stage was super detailed but worth it knowing we had a foot in the door and a chance to speak to someone in depth.”

Very helpful, Grantee

Very helpful, Grantee

Quite helpful, Unsuccessful applicant “Avoids completing a long application but then difficult to make a compelling case especially as we are an infrastructure organisation.”

Quite helpful, Unsuccessful applicant

Over 75% of applicants think the EOI decision time is quick Time for a decision on EoI "How long did it take for a decision to be made on your Expression of Interest?" / "Would you consider this to be…"

Perception of EoI decision time

21%

34%

Under a month

Very quick 30%

37% 51%

1 – 3 months 52%

50%↑

Quite quick 38%↓

6%

15%

4 – 6 months

Neither quick nor slow

4%

Grantee

19%

Unsuccessful applicant 0%

1%

7 – 9 months

Quite slow

1%

4%

0%

0%

10 – 12 months

Very slow

1%

1% 21%

Not sure 13% Source: Mercers' grantees and applicants survey Dec 2024 / Jan 2025 |Base: 0 to 212 respondents Source: Mercers' grantees and applicants survey Dec 2024 / Jan 2025 |Base: 0 to 166 respondents

0%

Dont know 0%

Grantee Unsuccessful applicant

Most applicants rate the application as reasonable for the grant size Unsuccessful applicants

Grantees "How reasonable did the application process feel for the size of grant you were applying for?"

22%

60%

Very reasonable

Very reasonable

22%

52%

55%

32%

Quite reasonable

Quite reasonable

51%

39%

Neither reasonable nor unreasonable

Neither reasonable nor unreasonable

4% 5%

15%↓ 14%

Mercers' Company 0%

Quite unreasonable

Benchmark Average

1% 0%

Very unreasonable 0% 4%

Dont know 2%

Source: Mercers' grantees and applicants survey Dec 2024 / Jan 2025 |Base: 0 to 258 respondents | Filters: Unsuccessful applicant Source: Mercers' grantees and applicants survey Dec 2024 / Jan 2025 |Base: 0 to 211 respondents | Filters: Grantee

Mercers' Company Quite unreasonable

3%

Very unreasonable

1%↑

9%

2% 3%

Dont know 3%

Benchmark Average

87% of grantees said staff were very helpful during application Unsuccessful applicants

Grantees "How helpful were Mercers’ staff while making your application?"

24%↑

87%↑

Very helpful

Very helpful

23%

74%

16%↓

7%↓

Quite helpful

Quite helpful

22%

14%

Neither helpful nor unhelpful

2% 5% 0%

Mercers' Company

0%

Benchmark Average

Quite unhelpful

To show:

0%↑

Very unhelpful

24% 5%

Mercers' Company

4%

Benchmark Average

Quite unhelpful

2%

Very unhelpful 2%

0%

Don't know / Not applicable

31%↓

Neither helpful nor unhelpful

2% 6%

Source: Mercers' grantees and applicants survey Dec 2024 / Jan 2025 |Base: 0 to 1275 respondents Filters: Grantee Source: Grant maker benchmark, nfpResearch | Base: ~13,000 applicants across 15 funders

Don't know / Not applicable

22%↑ 25%

Source: Mercers' grantees and applicants survey Dec 2024 / Jan 2025 |Base: 2 to 691 respondents Filters: Unsuccessful applicant Source: Grant maker benchmark, nfpResearch | Base: ~13,000 applicants across 15 funders

Strong relationships with clear communication 31

“

"I think for me, the trait that is significant, and signifies a good relationship, is good ongoing contact with the work that you're doing. So it's not just about handing over the money, it's about understanding a trust or grant-giving organisation has given you the money. So, they've taken time to understand you as a business, which Mercers’ certainly did with us. The ongoing relationship management, the monitoring and the understanding of the impact that that investment was having, was quite important as well. I didn't feel that it was intrusive. I don't want somebody that's standing over me wielding big sticks saying we want to know how you're spending our money, but I did feel that that there was a genuine interest in what that money was delivering and the long-term impact that it was having.”

Unsuccessful applicant (previously funded), Church & Communities, £1m - £5m

32

A majority of grantees think they have about the right amount of contact with Mercers’ "As a grantee, how much contact do you have with Mercers’?"

Far too much

A little bit too much

0% 0%

2%↑ 1% 88%

About the right amount

87% Mercers' Company

Too little

Far too little

Not sure

Source: Mercers' grantees and applicants survey Dec 2024 / Jan 2025 |Base: 0 to 2222 respondents

4%↓ 7% 0% 1% 5%↑ 3%

Benchmark Average

Common themes •

Most believed that once a year reporting and some contact between was the right amount.

•

Some expressed greatly appreciating in person visits, the grantee events, and a desired to relationship build with Mercers’.

As a grantee, how much contact do you have with Mercers’?

“We believe we have the right amount of contact because it strikes a balance between being informed and not feeling overwhelmed. The communication is timely and relevant, providing us with the necessary updates and support without being intrusive.”

Why do you day that? What is an appropriate and helpful amount of contact?

About the right amount, Grantee

141 comments

“[Name] visited our project and we love funders to visit the project to really see the work we do and talk to the children and families we reach. [Name] spoke to us about the application process, has kept us informed of other relevant opportunities and has always been there if we needed to ask anything about the grant.”

About the right amount, Grantee

“We don't feel that too much is demanded of us. We understand the reporting need and once a year is about right. We know that we are able to contact our grants manager if needed and feel comfortable in doing so.”

About the right amount, Grantee “It was about the right amount because there was a level of interest but not in a burdensome way. I would have been open to more contact, especially if it could have helped build more of an ongoing relationship.”

About the right amount, Grantee

“It's always beneficial to stay in touch, as meeting with [Name] and attending grant holder events are valuable opportunities. These interactions have helped us stay informed about updates in funding and evaluation processes, while also providing a chance to connect with other community organisation representatives. This kind of contact ensures we are well-supported and aligned with the latest developments.”

About the right amount, Grantee

Three quarters of grantees have found their point of contact very helpful – higher than the benchmark "How helpful was Mercers’ point of contact after you received your grant?"

75%↑

Very helpful

62%

19%

Quite helpful

Neither helpful nor unhelpful

19% 4%↓

8% Mercers' Company

Quite unhelpful

Very unhelpful

Don’t know

Source: Mercers' grantees and applicants survey Dec 2024 / Jan 2025 |Base: 19 to 819 respondents Filters: Grantee

0%

Benchmark Average

1% 0% 0% 2%↓ 9%

Flexibility of criteria/grant funding Facilitation of networking between grantees

Grants manager proactively encouraging collaboration and flexibility 36

“Our grant manager at the time was really good. He actually arranged these online forum groups so that us and other fundees in that tranche of funding for older carers regularly got together online. We discussed challenges and talked about positive stuff, shared information about our services and tried to steer that particular tranche of funding in a positive direction and help Mercers’ and all of us learn from that and make good contacts. So that was really good, and I felt I could call our grant manager when I needed to.”

Grantee, Older People & Housing, £251k - £500k

“They very generously gave us the funding and then the timetable wasn't quite as we thought it would be originally. So, we've been able to talk through that and have that open and honest conversation with Mercers’ about how the project is progressing […] It's the first time we've ever done this, and we didn't get the number of projects that we thought we would. So again, we've had that open conversation with Mercers’ to say, rather than fund a substandard project this year, can we fund three projects instead of the four that we'd hoped for, and carry over the rest for next year?

And I think we've had really positive feedback with that. We don't feel pressurised to say, let's just give all the money out and then we've ticked a box. Instead, it's making sure that everything has gone through a process and we feel really excited.”

Grantee, Heritage and Arts, £10m - £50m

Close, long-term relationship with the Mercers’

Mercers’ relationship and contact

“Funders like Mercers’ come to some of our sessions. You know, they’re genuinely interested in how it's going […] it feels like Mercers’ are friends of ours because they've been working with us for six years and supporting us. And not just behind a desk in an office but actually coming to sessions and talking to us and really interested to find out what the impact is for our participants and for our team, and how that then translates into what we designed next […] I think that kind of really engaged relationship and engaged funder is fantastic. Which you know they can't all do that, and I understand that [….] but actually the ones that do, they’re the greatest funders to work with.”

Grantee, Older People and Housing, £251k - £500k

37

Most grantees did not request changes or flexibility but most of those who did found the process to be very easy Requested changes / flexibility “Have you requested changes or flexibility regarding your grant, timelines, outcomes, or supported activities during the grant period?“ / “How did you find the process to request, discuss, and/or agree to these changes?”

No, we have not requested any changes or flexibility

Process for making changes 74%

Very easy

77%

Quite easy

Yes, and Mercers’ approved all changes

15%

17%

Neither easy nor difficult Yes, and Mercers’ approved some changes

Yes, but Mercers’ didn’t approve changes

6%

6%

Quite difficult

2%

Very difficult

0%

Don’t know

0%

0%

Don’t know

Source: Mercers' grantees and applicants survey Dec 2024 / Jan 2025 |Base: 0 to 212 respondents

4%

Source: Mercers' grantees and applicants survey Dec 2024 / Jan 2025 |Base: 0 to 48 respondents

What the website does well

How the website could improve ❖

Unclear who to contact with questions and the contact form does not portray openness to contact.

✓ User friendly and easier to navigate than other funder sites.

❖

Lack of explicit deadlines / timelines for grant applications.

✓ Demonstrates the importance of philanthropy to the Mercers’.

❖

No information on Members’ Philanthropy.

✓ Highlights some case studies of projects and organisations Mercers’ is funding.

❖

Having the option for downloadable templates for the application.

❖

Light colour fonts on the white background are hard to read.

❖

One applicant suggested having an audio option on the site to help with accessibility.

✓ Modern, clean, and clutter free design.

Easy to navigate and fresh “I think it's quite easy to navigate. Actually, I think it's quite clever. It comes out because Mercers’ are uber traditional, you know, uber historic. But I think the website comes over as quite fresh and were fairly easy to navigate.”

Grantee, Young People & Education, £1m - £5m

Exclusivity “The question I'd be asking straight away is, who do you fund? Can I even apply to you? Because the whole website gives off an air of exclusivity and heritage and city links [..] So it makes them seem quite exclusive. And I think by forcing you to fill out the web contact form, I reckon a lot of charities would look at that and think, oh, well, it's probably not worth it.”

Grantee, Young People & Education, £101k - £250k

Unsuccessful applicants would appreciate more tailored feedback 40

It is less clear to Mercers’ unsuccessful applicants that their application was declined when compared to the benchmark "How clear was it why Mercers’ declined your application?"

Very clear

8% 15%

25%

Quite clear

29%

20%

Neither clear nor unclear

18%

Mercers' Company 25%↑

Quite unclear 15%

16%

Very unclear

17%

Dont know

6% 6%

Source: Mercers' grantees and applicants survey Dec 2024 / Jan 2025 |Base: 0 to 1195 respondents

Benchmark Average

Most unsuccessful applicants would prefer a personalised email with feedback on their application “In what format did you receive feedback on why your proposal was unsuccessful?"

52%

Generic application outcome email

10% 38%

Personalised follow-up email

/ “In what format would you have liked to receive feedback on why your proposal was unsuccessful?”

87% 3%

Phone call

32% 2%

In person or online meeting

Not sure

26% 0% 1%

6%

Other (please state)

3%

0

Source: Mercers' grantees and applicants survey Dec 2024 / Jan 2025 | Base: 64 respondents Source: Mercers' grantees and applicants survey Dec 2024 / Jan 2025 | Base: 78 respondents

Received feedback Desired feedback

Feedback from Mercers’

• Those who received feedback found it to be generic. Unsuccessful applicants want feedback that covers:

➢ If the programme is not a fit for the criteria. ➢ If the application was not put together well enough. ➢ When they can reapply.

• If they have not been given clear indication of the above, they do not know whether they should put resources into applying again or not.

Eligible to apply again "I mean principally you want to know whether or not you could still apply again. Do I bother to apply again in the following year? You want to know if you were way off.

Because you've made a judgement to apply for them and you don't just apply to anything. So, you think that they are a potential funder."

UA, Heritage & Arts, £251k - £500k

Q&A for all unsuccessful applicants “…[another funder] did an online Q&A session for applicants that were unsuccessful and that was really useful because it's impossible to get individualised feedback from funders because you can't do that with thousands of applicants. But to offer some Q&A sessions online so you can learn, and then they went through what the key reasons were for those that they chose and those that didn’t get through and these were the missing factors. So, I think that was quite a refreshing process”

Grantee, Older People & Housing, £251k - £500k

43

Broader challenges and opportunities faced by applicants

44

Challenges ❖ Increased demand for services. ❖ Crowded marketplace for funding.

✓ Exploring other avenues for funding and income generation.

❖ Obtaining long-term, sustainable funding.

✓ Quality of the ‘product’ being rolled out to high numbers of people.

❖ Economic issues associated with rising costs.

✓ Partnership building.

❖ Static funding (i.e., funders not responding to economic changes/inflation).

✓ Expanding presence in the voluntary sector and in communities.

❖ Finding funders who offer core funding.

✓ Utilising funder plus offers to advance/develop (e.g., growth strategies).

❖ Funders changing strategy or ceasing funding. ❖ Volunteer and staff recruitment/retention.

45

Opportunities

Challenges

46

Lack of core funding offers

Volunteer retention

“There are still a majority of funders who take that exasperating approach of saying, well, we only want to fund direct project costs, and they're focused on one-off projects, 12 months funding.

They don't want to fund any of your core costs.”

“In terms of our volunteering, we've got a bit of a mantra on how long-term relationships lead to sustainable change. So, there's no point in a volunteer volunteering for a couple of days or, you know, three or four weeks.

We need someone to have that regular commitment.

So, the greatest strength of our work becomes the greatest weakness in terms of recruitment of people.”

Grantee, Young People & Education, £101k - £250k

Grantee, Young People & Education, £1m - £5m

Static funding

Funders changing strategy/criteria

“With funding, it's tricky. Our core funding for example has been static for the last 3 or 4 tenders. So, the expectation is we deliver more for the same amount of funding. And, of course, we've had the double whammy of the National Insurance increase and everything is more expensive.”

“So as an example, the funder that we've historically had an amazing relationship with and year on year, has helped support our organisation and make it run. They change the criteria and they said, no, {…} And we said you've been helping so much and now we have beneficiaries who are going unsupported because the criteria has changed and you've made it a little bit more difficult to jump through these hoops.”

Grantee, Older People & Housing, £251k - £500k

Unsuccessful applicant, Church & Communities, £501k £1m

Quality of the service achieving aims of the organisation “We have this track record we have on the ground with our work it means that we know what we're providing is transformative. We know it's beyond value for money. I mean it's cheap as chips what we're offering.[…] [Young people] need safe spaces. They need trusted adult relationships, and they need creative, engaging activities. Well, those three things, we are absolutely brilliant at and so I think we're providing exactly what young people need to create positive futures for them.”

Grantee, Young People & Education, £1m - £5m

Opportunities

Diversifying funding streams “So, we're now trying to move towards our first public sector contract. So that's a new and quite a challenging departure. […] We're looking for that security of income from somewhere else because it's certainly not coming from traditional grant funders.”

Grantee, Young People & Education, £101k £250k

47

Corporate relationship building “We’re starting to explore corporate sponsorship, which we've not done previously, on a major level. And so, we have a whole strategy that we're implementing at the moment, to build relationships with corporate companies and to build relationships where that will turn into a partnership of some kind.”

Grantee, Heritage and Arts, £1m - £5m

How can funders support?

Varied pots of funding Provide core and multiyear, sustainable funding. Funders shouldn’t always be looking for innovation.

48

Sector knowledge & expansion

Funder Plus

Listen to organisations and know what’s happening on the ground.

Funders have good networks and can help organisations/funders connect.

Providing non-financial support to help organisations with areas such as capacity building and streamlining of services.

What does an engaged, supportive, relational funder look like?

49

Interested and curious about the work of the grantee

Trusting, open and honest

Comes to visit and develops understanding of the grantee

Understands and serves the needs of the charity sector rather than that of the funder

Works in partnership and develops relationship

Networks to bring organisations and the funding sector together

Dedicated contact/funding manager

Flexible, light touch reporting that is similar to other funders

How do these traits and attributes line up with Mercers’? ✓ Mercers’ is seen as an open and flexible funder. When some grantees have had to change project plans, they felt they could approach Mercers’ and found their point of contact easy to talk to. ✓ Some grantees have had experience of networking events facilitated by Mercers’ and found these to be helpful in connecting them not only with other organisations facing similar challenges but also with other funders.

✓ Generally, Mercers’ is seen to show a genuine interest in grantees’ work and want to understand the impact of the grant beyond reporting criteria.

❖ However, grantees have had different experiences with the level of contact with Mercers’. Most grantees discussed having a grants manager or named contact at the organisation that was easy to contact and have had visits to see their work. While a couple others found it more difficult to reach someone and would like to be visited and have more one-to-one support. Mercers’ assigns grant managers to all grantees so some grantees feeling that they did not have one suggests the need to make it more apparent who an organisation’s grant manager is.

❖ One unsuccessful applicant discussed how, although it was clear that the criteria had changed for a funding stream, earlier communications for the upcoming change would have been helpful.

50

Suggestions for the sector for non-financial support

51

Highlights of Funder Plus •

Not many applicants were familiar with the term Funder Plus but were familiar with the definition and concept of Funder Plus.

•

Applicants are open to Funder Plus and there is a need for it, particularly with budgets becoming more constrained and demand increasing.

•

Charities want opportunities to network with one another and have appreciated when Mercers’ has provided this. This is a chance for them to share their learnings with one another and build connections. ➢ Some mentioned positive experiences of other funders facilitating sessions for charities to share their knowledge.

•

Charities’ needs are also varied so a one size fits all approach to Funder Plus may not be the best course. The ability to engage with Funder Plus offerings often depends on organisation size, budget, and in house expertise.

➢ Some respondents mentioned other funders, such as Lloyds and PwC, who gave them access to consultants and other free services that their organisation needed.

52

Examples of Funder Plus offerings / opportunities applicants have engaged with

53

Business plans and support

HR services and support

Legal support

Financial control services

Business mentor

Use of meeting/board rooms

Capacity building for CEOs and Senior Leadership

Staff development, training and mentoring

Organisation review/evaluation (run by external consultant)

Social media strategy and advice

Higher levels of uncertainty on Funder Plus activities, but where a grantee has used it, it is positively perceived “Mercers’ aims to bring value to its grantees in addition to funding through Funder Plus activities, including Capacity Building and Learning Partner opportunities. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements:"

Strongly agree

Agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Mercers’ provides effective support over and above the monetary value of the grant

Mercers’ capacity building offer (including webinars, training courses, peer to peer sessions, and opportunities with Cranfield Trust and Media Trust) has been of benefit to our organisation

Mercers’ learning and evaluation partner support has been helpful in our organisation’s own evaluation work and impact reporting

Source: Mercers' grantees and applicants survey Dec 2024 / Jan 2025 | Base: 211 respondents

Disagree

Strongly disagree

26%

35%

Not sure/ not relevant

19%

3%

16%

1%

18%

25%

23%

4%

29%

1%

13%

24%

31%

4%

28%

“

“I think that the other thing that's been really helpful is when a funder has got together a group of charities that they're funding having that list of action learning sets and sort of reflective time where we learn together. Because most charities work pretty much in silos and facilitating that sort of level of shared learning, I think is really, really helpful. I've often been to those things, and I've gone at the beginning of the day thinking this is going to be such a waste of a day because it's not going to help at all. And at the end of the day, I thought, oh my goodness me, we've got to do more of this because it's that kind of collective wisdom that can help.”

Grantee, Young People & Education, £1m - £5m Grantee has previously attended a cohort session commissioned by Mercers’ run by an external organisation 55

What do people want to see from a Mercers’ Funder Plus offering?

There is an appetite for Funder Plus support among applicants, but it needs to be the right fit at the right time. Charities see funders, especially Mercers’, as organisations with broad connections and they would like them to share/utilise those networks more.

Areas where applicants mentioned additional support is needed include: •

IT support

•

Industry/sector insights

•

Networking

•

Strategy and business planning

•

Media and communications i.e., social • media strategies

Volunteer engagement and management

•

HR support i.e., recruitment policies

•

Staff training and development

•

Advocacy and policy work

•

Trustee support

•

Marketing and sales

•

Leadership support and management

56

Staff training opportunities “When charities are faced with a challenging financial climate the first thing to cut is the training budget.

That's just out the window. There's very few opportunities for staff training or on the job training, etc. So, if there's opportunities like that, I think that would be valuable.”

Grantee, Heritage & Arts, £10m - £50m

Funders Plus – areas for opportunity

Legal and financial support “I mean, my perception of Mercers’ is that being in the city and having lots of those historic connections into that powerhouse, like the London legal and financial world, that would strike me as a good thing to offer. So, I wouldn't think of going to Mercers’ for a social media need. I'd probably find a younger, trendier, less established funder for that. But because I perceive them as very kind of high establishment, surely, they must have access to law firms that would do some pro bono work or even accounting firms that might offer pro bono independent examinations, things like that.”

Grantee, Young People & Education, £101k - £250k

57

A concluding note from nfpResearch nfpResearch carried out this evaluation process on behalf of Mercers’ to provide an independent review of its work and approach. We followed Market Research Society guidelines throughout, ensuring confidentiality and anonymity to all research participants.

Through this evaluation Mercers’ set out to gain a deeper understanding of the experiences of both grantees and unsuccessful applicants. We explored perceptions of Mercers’, as well as how applicants perceive their relationships with the funder. More broadly, we gathered perceptions of non-financial support and the general context charities are operating in – findings Mercers’ were keen to share more widely with the sector in this report.

We highlighted where Mercers’ is performing well and areas in which it could improve. Key highlights included: •

Compared to the wider benchmark of funders nfpResearch has worked with, Mercers’ performs strongly; particularly in its approachability, the helpfulness of its staff, and the ease of its application process.

•

The application process is widely recognised as a strength: 85% of grantees rated it as excellent or very good, exceeding the nfpFunders benchmark. Unsuccessful applicants also rated Mercers’ application process slightly higher than the benchmark average.

•

Feedback remains the most consistent area for improvement. Only a third of unsuccessful applicants understood why they were declined, falling below the nfpFunders benchmark.

Alongside Mercers’, we 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. Over the next few months, Mercers’ will be looking in more detail at how to respond to this research, ensuring it can build on the strengths, whilst addressing the areas for improvement.

58

68-80 Hanbury St London E1 5JL insight@nfpresearch.com +44 (0)20 7426 8888

Registered office: 68-80 Hanbury St London E1 5JL Registered in England No. 04387900. VAT Registration 839 8186 72