89%
11%
33 Hours
Median
77%
23%
84%
16%
2017 Deadlines:
Types of Grants Awarded:
Geographic Focus:
For Fiscal Year
Total Assets:
Total Grants:
Change in Assets FY :
Amount of Grants to Minnesota Nonprofits:
Largest Grant:
Smallest Grant:
Average Grant:
Reviewer UK583 - Grant Writer
http://slkjfdf.net/ - Eqixok Aqilianuy vue.hsgr.grantadvisor.org.uk.oac.vn http://slkjfdf.net/
(Unknown)
Grant Writer
Other
2014
http://slkjfdf.net/ - Eqixok Aqilianuy vue.hsgr.grantadvisor.org.uk.oac.vn http://slkjfdf.net/
http://slkjfdf.net/ - Eqixok Aqilianuy vue.hsgr.grantadvisor.org.uk.oac.vn http://slkjfdf.net/
http://slkjfdf.net/ - Eqixok Aqilianuy vue.hsgr.grantadvisor.org.uk.oac.vn http://slkjfdf.net/
http://slkjfdf.net/ - Eqixok Aqilianuy vue.hsgr.grantadvisor.org.uk.oac.vn http://slkjfdf.net/
http://slkjfdf.net/ - Eqixok Aqilianuy vue.hsgr.grantadvisor.org.uk.oac.vn http://slkjfdf.net/
http://slkjfdf.net/ - Eqixok Aqilianuy vue.hsgr.grantadvisor.org.uk.oac.vn http://slkjfdf.net/
Reviewer UK848 - Grant Writer
http://slkjfdf.net/ - Legobo Osetmecu lrq.ihet.grantadvisor.org.uk.juu.ik http://slkjfdf.net/
(Unknown)
Grant Writer
Funded for lesser amount
2018
http://slkjfdf.net/ - Legobo Osetmecu lrq.ihet.grantadvisor.org.uk.juu.ik http://slkjfdf.net/
http://slkjfdf.net/ - Legobo Osetmecu lrq.ihet.grantadvisor.org.uk.juu.ik http://slkjfdf.net/
http://slkjfdf.net/ - Legobo Osetmecu lrq.ihet.grantadvisor.org.uk.juu.ik http://slkjfdf.net/
http://slkjfdf.net/ - Legobo Osetmecu lrq.ihet.grantadvisor.org.uk.juu.ik http://slkjfdf.net/
http://slkjfdf.net/ - Legobo Osetmecu lrq.ihet.grantadvisor.org.uk.juu.ik http://slkjfdf.net/
http://slkjfdf.net/ - Legobo Osetmecu lrq.ihet.grantadvisor.org.uk.juu.ik http://slkjfdf.net/
Reviewer UK462 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2019
This is related to 2021/22 not 2019 as anything after 2019 does not seem to be an option. After a 9 month process during which communication was very limited we were delighted to be asked through to the second stage. This resulted in a significant amount more work on the specific questions asked of us alongside the standard 2nd stage questions. This was alongside the NPO application we had to put together. We were then suddenly handed over to someone new who had not been involved in our first stage interview so hadn't met or taken time to get to know us. After spending many days pulling the info together and submitting it as agreed we received an email to tell us the grants team had decided we weren't strong enough to be presented to panel. One of the reasons being that we were based in London and the fund was looking to prioritise outside of London. This was something known from the start. We are a diverse led charity and a very small team; it would have been much better if we hadn't been put through to the second stage. The whole experience has been very disheartening and not an example of good practice as a funder.
Difficult to work with, Bureaucratic
(Unknown)
Applied and not funded
2019
Bad
Following our initial interview the grants officer who was in charge of our case simply would not respond to any emails. I had to go through the general information desk in the end. Eventually we were sent an email asking us through to second stage. Then nothing - then handed over to someone new who received our information and removed us from the process. We never felt like there was anyone on our side being supportive. The whole process felt very opaque.
Average
Please consider the people at the end of the work you are asking them to do. Please really think about communicating clearly and with warmth and understanding - other funders are doing this much more positively. If you have asked people to do a lot of work for a second stage to present to panel, at least take them to the end of that process even if it is eventually unsuccessful. Decisions that seem arbitrary e.g. removing a charity from that process before that point, after having asked them to do the work, are very discouraging.
Just really be sure you have the time to dedicate to this process if you want to go for it, and that you can build a great rapport with the grant officer from the start. In our case I wish I had taken the initial communication problems as a sign not to go any further.
I think some of the charities & individuals it chooses to fund are inspiring and excellent - one of the reasons we chose to apply.
200+
Reviewer UK360 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2019
think very hard before using your small resources as we received conflicting guidence over multiple applications
think very hard before applying if you are not in England, especially outside the big cities
Builds relationships, "Gets" nonprofits and issues
(Unknown)
Applied and not funded
2019
Average
Average
it achieves what it sets out to do
Be consistent in your feedback and guidence, make sure that all grant officers are giving the same information and support, especially to small, project funded companies. Do not view different all parts of the U.K. through a London lens. each area has its own characteristics and demagraphic
we had a good support understanding until we changed grant officer. then we had conflicting information and new assessment criteria that had not be pointed out to us before. this wasted our time and resources
Supports participatory arts and recognises the value of them
65
Grant Applicant - applied in 2019
The first stage application asks lots of organisational questions. There was no request for a business case, or elements there of, yet feedback given was that there was no project information.
Culturally sensitive, "Gets" nonprofits and issues
(Unknown)
Applied and not funded
Other
2019
Average
Good
Decrease the length of time between initial discussion and response.
The funds are incredibly competitive and the turn around time is long. Because the fund is so oversubscribed, they can be incredibly precise about what they want to fund.
Funds quality artistic programmes
8
Grant Applicant - applied in 2018
Be clear about the impact of your ask.
(Unknown)
Applied and not funded
Funded for amount requested
2018
Good
Good
Genuinely insightful and constructive feedback.
20
Reviewer UK881 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2019
Do not get your hopes up. It is a very long process. I had thought in getting through to Stage 2 my chances were high and it would be like working with HLF where there is a lot of hand holding and development to get the application over the line. There was some advice and they were lovely, but the advice was not clear enough (ie, ask for what you need, use clear language, give examples of your work) and the feedback was more specific than the advice session. I spent a year on working the partnerships up, speaking to communities and developing the project.
(Unknown)
Applied and not funded
2019
Average
The PHF process of application is just not clear enough. Deciding on which programme to apply into at the start is an issue. Navigating the website and the process is challenging.
Average
This is hard to say. We are a smaller organisation working at the coal face on issues of social injustice which is where PHF want to go but their process has taken so much time out of our development hours. Pursuing this application meant we did not pursue others due to a lack of our own capacity.
It was a huge blow to the confidence of myself and the organisation to miss out. This happens with funding but the fact you are not able to reapply within 12 months means that all that energy, all that will and all that skill is mothballed. I would really like to see, like with HLF or ACE, the ability to tweak and resubmit while energy and investment in the project from the partners is still high.
They like development and exploration, testing etc more than a project with an outcome. But I think that is clear from the start.
Good feedback that I can take forward.
70
Reviewer UK106 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2019
You can request an enquiry call in advance, which will clarify the guidelines and the intention for funding. They are very approachable and helpful.
Gives more than money, Friendly, Builds relationships, Responsive
(Unknown)
Applied and not funded
2019
Good
Good
N/A
N/A
Caring, meaningful support, no time restrictions. Deep listening to see how else they can help.
5
Reviewer UK245 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2019
really helpful and good support
(Unknown)
Applied and not funded
Other
2019
Good
Good
35
Reviewer UK165 - Grant Applicant - applied in 2019
I was glad I applied, although felt that it was hard to get across my idea in the limited characters per box, plus although I answered the questions to the best of my ability, I didn't feel that I could really share the heart of my project. I'm still new to grant writing, so I'm sure it's just a learning curve. Definitely worthwhile, but time-consuming!
Positive leader in the field, Friendly, Builds relationships
(Unknown)
Applied and not funded
2019
Good
Average
My idea was not seen as radical enough compared with other ideas, but it's hard to really understand what radical means.
Just go for it. This is my 3rd grant attempt now and although I wasn't successful, it's helped me to organise my thoughts!
Have lots of great opportunities to apply for grants. Seems very dedicated to growth of individuals and organizations and it appears that if you get funding once, you can develop a longer-term relationship with them as a funder.
30
