3 key takeaways from a first-time grant panel member
Written by Catherine Fadashe
A few months ago, I had the opportunity to be a grant panel member for The Phoenix Way’s £2m funding round, supported by The Youth Endowment Fund. In total, I reviewed over 70 applications from non-profit organisations based in England seeking to be awarded between £50k-£75k.
All these organisations were offering solutions to reduce the level of violence in their community and empowering young people to live positive, fulfilling lives. Needless to say, it was a huge responsibility.
Anyone considering to be a grant panel member should keep top of mind that this is a role that should not be taken lightly. For this reason, I share below three key takeaways (with a bonus at the end!) that first-time grant reviewers should make note of to have their experience be as smooth as possible.
These are ACTUAL people
People working in the non-profit sector dedicate much of their time and effort helping the most vulnerable within our society; often out of their own pockets, and more times than not, with little to no resources.
They are the ones that are out on the frontline and so they have on the ground knowledge on the needs of their service users. So yes, whilst reading vast amounts of applications back-to-back can frankly become quite tedious, it is important to remember that you have been given the opportunity to provide a young person the resources to have the best start to their life.
For the Phoenix Way funding reviews, I realised that my rating of an application can be the reason why a teenager decides to pick up a book instead of a knife.
With this in mind, understand that the application questions and consequently, the answers, have been intentionally crafted to help you, the reviewer, make the best judgement call on whether an organisation can deliver on their aims for their service users.
When reviewing applications, take time to go on the organisation’s website ‘About us’ page, blog/news page, social media and view their recent updates and testimonials. This will give tangible proof of the impact made in their local community which can help in humanising the application.
Conveying passion is more important than spelling errors
Typos and grammatical errors happen. And whilst applicants should make every effort before submission to check their grant application is as polished as possible, marking down an application because of an occasional spelling error is a bit harsh. A more sensible approach is to take a holistic view of the application.
For some of the grassroot organisations I reviewed, the founders were parents, siblings, friends that had lost their loved ones to violence and so they had deeply personal reasons for wanting to dissuade young people from a life of crime.
If the people in the leadership team of the organisation have lived experience it most likely means they will be more empathetic and have a stronger grasp of the pain points of their service users, and as a result, the solution they should provide.
Also, some funding opportunities can offer the option for applications to be submitted in different formats i.e. video or audio recordings. When reviewing such applications, listen and try not to be distracted by the lighting, background, what the applicant is wearing etc. because none of those things mentioned indicate whether they are capable of delivering successfully for their service users.
Lastly, take into consideration that some applicants may be neurodivergent so their presentation and/or writing style might differ from the norm, but it does not make them any less qualified to access grant funding.
Most of the preventative measures are focused on the arts, sports and education
A key criterion used to assess the grant applications was to evaluate the level of creativity in their solutions. For the majority of the applications, the solutions could be put in the aforementioned three buckets.
After reading about the nth organisation who also provides a music studio to upcoming, young and talented musicians, it may make you start questioning whether there is a distinctive quality to the organisation that makes it more superior than the others to be considered for funding. And if your answer is no, it might influence your decision to give a lower rating to that application.
To avoid this, I made it a point to view each application as unique. Every application was a different leadership team, different community being served, and different lived experiences.
So what if the previous applications had similar solutions? Art, sports and education are all aspects of life that enrich and enhance our experience of being in this world. It is what brings colour to our existence and are motivating factors for what empowers young people to live positively, hence why they are what many organisations offer to their service users.
Pattern-recognition is inevitable when reviewing a large number of applications so it is worth noting, so you don’t become desensitised and fail to capture key details that might help the application progress to the next stage of reviews.
BONUS takeaway – Do not review applications on an empty stomach
Just like the Snickers tagline says, “You’re not yourself when you’re hungry”.
Have a filling and nutritious meal before reading applications. And whilst reviewing, give yourself 5-10 mins breaks in between to drink water and eat a healthy snack.
There was a famous study that showed that judges were more likely to hand out harsher sentences when they were hungry. This same finding can be applied to grant application reviews because you’re most likely going to be less forgiving with any perceived errors when you’re paying more attention to your growling belly. So eat.
In conclusion, you have been placed in a very important position as a grant panel member. Remembering that people and communities are at the centre; and also having fun with it, will make the review process seamless, rewarding and enjoyable.
