There is no one-size-fits-all approach with regard to how funding proposals or applications are dealt with once received. Practice varies depending on the size and complexity of the Fund and the resources available to those involved in governing and administering it.

Ideally, once received, each proposal (along with any supporting documents) will be scanned, logged and filed in some way. It is a good idea to give each proposal a unique reference number so that those involved in considering them can be clear when talking about it with others as to exactly which proposal is being referred to; as the Fund rolls on year after year, with perhaps repeat funding proposals from regular ‘customers’, this can be very useful in avoiding confusion or mistakes.

It will also be useful to set up some form of electronic file sharing system that allows the decision making group to view the funding proposals (and any external assessment reports – see below) once these are received, and sufficiently in advance of the decision making meeting.

Be aware of the need to comply with the requirements of the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) when processing and sharing any personal (confidential or sensitive) information. Guidance is available from the Information Commissioner’s Office.

The decision making group, or Fund Administrator if one has been appointed, can then begin to look through the proposals and check whether they are complete, i.e. whether all questions in the application form have been answered sufficiently and all supporting documents have been provided (such as their constitution, accounts, etc.). Through this check, they may start to get a sense of which submissions are:

  • Eligible and clearly meet the Fund purposes / priorities and other criteria;
  • Clearly ineligible, or
  • Require further information on whether and how they meet the Fund purposes/priorities and other criteria.

How will incomplete submissions be dealt with? If applicants will be allowed more time to provide any missing information, be sure to allow each the same amount.

The decision making group will need to agree what level of scrutiny will be applied to funding proposals. This should be proportionate to the level of funding requested, with more scrutiny applied only where larger sums are requested. Some further considerations in this regard include:

  • Will any specialists be brought in to help the decision making group consider particularly technical projects? And/or might there be value in commissioning an assessment from a trained assessor who can (dispassionately) provide a view on the proposal, perhaps exploring it further with the applicant? If so, be sure to convey this information to applicants within the Fund materials.
  • If outsourcing to an external assessor, there are likely to be cost implications. How might those be met?
  • Will applicants have the opportunity to present their project proposal to the decision making group? If so, again, be sure to convey this within the Fund materials.
  • What level of feedback are the decision making group prepared to give to applicants?
  • What level of feedback might applicants expect?
  • How will the decision making group be sure to treat every request ‘fairly’, i.e. consistently and objectively? Are conflict of interest procedures in place and being followed?

Whichever approach is taken, it is critical that all requests for funding are treated in a similar fashion – and that those submitting requests feel they’ve been treated similarly!