At the award making meeting, all members of the decision making group should be asked to declare any conflicts of interest in any of the funding proposals being presented, and any such declarations should be duly recorded, in line with the group’s adopted conflicts of interest policy (see the module Getting the Governance Right for more information on this).

If there are a large number of funding proposals to consider, or any that are known to be complex or particularly controversial, the Chair of the meeting may propose that they are taken in a specific order. The discussion over each proposal may then be open to all or the Chair may invite views from each individual before opening the meeting up for general discussion.

Where possible, it is best to try to reach decisions by consensus. However, in some cases, such as where there is a clear split of views or where a number of members of the group are having difficulty taking a clear position, it may be necessary to go to a vote.

There are, generally speaking, four possible courses of action when deciding on a funding proposal:

Award a grant at the full amount requested:

  • Award a grant at less than the full request (where this still enables the project to go ahead and deliver an impact in some way)
  • Defer to the subsequent funding round, requiring more information of the applicant
  • Reject, where there are clear reasons to do so.

If the group decides not to award the full amount, what reduced amount will be offered and for which items/ costs? Will the project still be able to go ahead (in some way) with this amount of funding? What will this mean in terms of the likely impact the project can deliver?

If rejecting a proposal, the decision making group will need to ensure it has clear and publicly defendable reasons for doing so. These should relate back to the extent to which the Fund eligibility rules, purposes/priorities and other criteria are met (or not, as the case may be).

If deferring a proposal for a decision at a later date, the group should be clear as to whether they are indeed content to genuinely consider the request for an award, should the applicant be able to provide a satisfactory response to any outstanding questions. If not, then the group should perhaps consider rejection. Check first whether the project is time-dependent such that an award at a later date would be too late to enable the project to go ahead. This might include for example timescales for spending matched funding. Feedback (see below) should clearly state what additional information the applicant is required to provide prior to the funding proposal being re-considered, and a clear deadline for this.

Decisions should be recorded in the minutes of the meeting, covering whether the proposal was awarded a grant, rejected or deferred until the next meeting, how much was awarded, for what (summary of the grant purpose), and any conditions of grant or feedback for the applicant. The minutes should not record the view of individual members of the decision making body – decisions should be collectively owned by the group.

Once the minutes are formally approved by the group, they should be published online and made available to anyone who requests a copy. This is in line with good practice in transparency and accountability.