MTF Small Grants Scheme Case Studies

Case Study A

Charity A supports young people into employment and training. They received 1 year of core/unrestricted funding. Their grant application was successful for the following reasons:

Charity A operates exclusively within our 4 target boroughs, across all of the charity’s activities, not just the project they wanted funding for.
Right at the start when submitting their application, Charity A provided all the information we ask for in the application form.
Charity A had clearly read through our eligibility criteria and applied for a grant amount which was within the size range allowed by the eligibility criteria.
The budget they submitted was clear, concise and showed all the relevant expenditure and income for the project, including projected/pending income. The budget was helpfully broken down into an initial simplified overview, before a more detailed breakdown. Charity A had taken the trouble to explain any language or labels in their budget which might not be easy to understand for people who are not on Charity A’s management team.
When we needed to ask for extra information on a few points, Charity A gave us clear and prompt answers. For instance, we asked them to give us more detail on which of our four target boroughs their beneficiaries live in. Charity A replied promptly with clear percentages of how many of their beneficiaries live in each borough.
Charity A had a good understanding of the impact of their work and how to effectively monitor that impact. When we asked for more detail about their likely impact in the coming year for which they were asking us for funding, they gave realistic goals based on research and experience. Their processes appeared sensible and effective for how they monitor their impact, both while they are delivering work and after the work has finished.
We checked the facts of the application not only by email and phone queries to the Charity A, but also by a ‘virtual visit’ to the charity where MTF visitors asked Charity A’s staff about the application. All these methods showed that the reality matched the facts as Charity A had stated them in its application. Charity A answered our questions with appropriate and convincing responses.
Sometimes we visit charities in person but on this occasion a ‘virtual visit’ on Teams was easier for MTF. Charity A was happy to accommodate this approach.

Case Study B

Charity B strives to improve the lives of its local community (including elderly befriending, a food hub and family support). Charity B received 3 years of project funding. Their grant application was successful for the following reasons:

Charity B operates exclusively in Southwark which is one of our 4 target boroughs, serving its local community for many years.
Charity B showed a clear understanding of the local community’s needs. They demonstrated that the project they wanted us to fund meets one of these needs, and why Charity B is well placed to deliver it.
Right at the start when submitting their application, Charity B provided all the information we ask for in the application form.
When we needed to ask for extra information on a few points, Charity B gave us clear and prompt answers.
We found the budget they submitted with the application form was slightly too high level for us to understand easily, and some parts of it were a bit confusing. However, after one email request, Charity B promptly sent through an updated version of the budget which removed all confusion.
Charity B’s application was supported by a strong reference from another funder which had recently funded Charity B for something else. We should stress that a funder reference is not essential for success in our Small Grants Scheme, and most of our successful applicants don’t have one. However, a strong funder reference gives us extra confidence in cases where we know that the other funder has a rigorous approach to deciding grant applications.
Charity B’s trustees’ policy on reserves, as stated in Charity B’s statutory annual report, seemed sensible for a charity like Charity B. This is almost always the case in all applications we receive. Charity B had complied with the request in the application form to explain whether their level of reserves at the time of applying actually complied with the policy. Their actual level of reserves did comply with the policy. That was good, as it meant Charity B was actually carrying the amount of ‘spare money’ which its trustees thought it needed – no more, and no less.
We checked the facts of the application not only by email and phone queries to the Charity B, but also by a visit to the charity where MTF visitors asked Charity B’s staff about the application. All these methods showed that the reality matched the facts as Charity B had stated them in its application.
We wanted to visit Charity B in person, and Charity B was happy to accommodate that.

Case Study A

Charity A supports young people into employment and training. They received 1 year of core/unrestricted funding. Their grant application was successful for the following reasons:

Case Study B

﻿Charity B strives to improve the lives of its local community (including elderly befriending, a food hub and family support). Charity B received 3 years of project funding. Their grant application was successful for the following reasons:

Charity B strives to improve the lives of its local community (including elderly befriending, a food hub and family support). Charity B received 3 years of project funding. Their grant application was successful for the following reasons: