Listening, learning and improving our funding

Funding can be a complicated business. We can’t fund everyone who applies, but equally we don’t want our application process to be so detailed and demanding that it acts as a barrier to the people we want to support. 

Getting the balance right is important. Feedback helps us, whether received directly or via the anonymous GrantAdvisor UK website, which we encourage all grant applicants to use. 

However, we wanted to learn more, so in June 2023 we initiated a comprehensive End-to-End Review of our funding processes. 

The Review, which took place over 12 months, used anonymous feedback from applicant surveys and focus groups, alongside a review of grant-making practices being adopted by other funders and input from staff.

As part of this process, surveys were circulated to 753 organisations that had applied to City Bridge Foundation in the 18 months prior to October 2023, of which 339 responded. 

• 54% of successful applicant organisations who received the survey responded
• 31% of unsuccessful and withdrawn applicant organisations who received the survey responded

To enable applicants to provide feedback anonymously, this part of the work was delivered by external consultants Renaisi. We also consulted with the funding team’s Equity Partners, who supported the approach and emerging recommendations, and involved colleagues from across City Bridge Foundation through an internal working group and an Advisory Group. 

On completion of the End-to-End Review in June 2024, 18 recommendations were presented to City Bridge Foundation’s Funding Committee, all of which were approved. 

These recommendations aimed to support the development of equitable funding practice; streamline processes and improve our working relationships with applicants and funded organisations. Alongside a wider consultation, they also informed the development of our new ten-year funding strategy, Standing with Londoners, which we launched in March 2025. 

Developing City Bridge Foundation’s funding practice is an ongoing learning journey, and we recognise there is much more to do. As we make changes, there are sometimes tensions between different things we are trying to achieve. A few of these are explored below.

Below, we look at how five of the 18 recommendations have been put into practice.

Survey respondents told us that the complexity of our previous funding programmes was confusing and that our funding criteria could have been clearer. 75% of unsuccessful applicants indicated that pre-application calls would have been helpful.

To offer applicants the opportunity to ask questions directly of programme staff, the End-to-End Review recommended introducing pre-application calls. These were introduced with the first round of our Standing with Londoners Access to Justice funding programme.

Early feedback from pre-application calls has been positive and we have made further improvements to the call booking form and process, all of which has been captured in new guidance materials for callers and applicants. 

It has been challenging to strike the right balance with our guidance materials. We want to be as helpful as possible without overwhelming applicants with information, and we know there is more we can do to make the guidance easier to navigate.

Survey respondents told us that the process of applying for previous City Bridge Foundation funding was long and difficult. This was especially so for smaller groups that found our processes disproportionate to the grant size awarded.

Focus group contributors were in favour of shifting to a two-stage application process and also felt that our previous application process could favour organisations with access to professional bid-writing skills.

Building on this feedback and best practice guidance from the sector, the End-to-End Review recommended introducing a two-stage application process.

For Standing with Londoners we are trialling a two-stage assessment process, which still requires applicants to make a full, single application. However, by introducing two stages of assessment we are able to evaluate the strongest applications at an early stage. 

Faster decisions for first-stage applicants

This enables faster decision making, especially for unsuccessful first-stage applicants. A negative response isn’t what an applicant wants, but receiving that decision earlier means they are not left waiting until the full assessment process has been completed.

The End-to-End Review also aimed to streamline assessments and reduce turnaround times, another issue raised through the surveys and focus groups. There is a balance here: introducing different stages can help us make earlier decisions for some applicants, while also adding complexity to the overall process.

We want to support organisations that best align with our funding priorities, while also providing a good experience for applicants that do not ultimately receive funding. We are still learning about the best way to balance these different aims. Looking more closely at applicants’ needs and experiences has given us valuable insights.

Our work to redesign and trial different ways of structuring our application process is ongoing and we look forward to sharing our learning as it emerges.

Feedback from unsuccessful applicants also prompted us to look again at whether our approach to risk could make it harder for newer or less established organisations, or more innovative work, to secure funding. 

The End-to-End Review recommended developing how City Bridge Foundation assesses and manages risk, which led to the development of our first Strengths and Risks assessment tool. This offers staff a structured way of considering applicants’ strengths and potential risks across eight areas relating to how an organisation operates, alongside its ability to deliver its activities or services. 

The Strengths and Risks tool is not designed to be punitive, or to treat every area of risk as a reason not to fund. It helps us consider an applicant’s strengths alongside potential risks, recognising that strengths in some areas may give us confidence that risks in others can be managed. 

We have introduced strength profiling to our assessment process, and over time we can use this data to understand our own risk appetite, the range of strengths and risk profiles among organisations that secure funding and at what level, and which organisations are choosing to apply to City Bridge Foundation and for which programmes. 

We can also use this data to inform how we design our Funder Plus offer to meet the development needs of funded organisations and adopt more equitable ways of distributing financial and non-financial support.

The need for core funding was clearly expressed by survey respondents and focus group contributors. In response, the End-to-End Review recommended a shift to offering core funding as standard practice, which is reflected in our new Standing with Londoners funding policy. 

To support this shift, we have also reviewed our grant offer letter, and our approach to Impact and Learning, to make sure they work well alongside a more flexible approach to funding.

The End-to-End Review recommended that peer review panels be introduced to ensure that different perspectives are brought into the assessment process for each application. This has been implemented for the launch of Standing with Londoners with the aim of making City Bridge Foundation’s funding practice more equitable. 

There is, however, a balance to be struck. Bringing more perspectives into decisions takes time, while applicants have also been clear with us about the impact of waiting a long time for a decision. 

Survey respondents and focus group contributors fed back about the long turnaround times associated with our previous funding offer, and the impact that could have on organisations. For example, the research found that just under 45% of all survey respondents did not know when they could expect a decision.

The research also highlighted how important communication is while applicants are waiting for a decision. Taking this on board for the first funding rounds for Standing with Londoners, we have published clear commitments about our turnaround times and decision dates. This has helped give applicants greater certainty about when they can expect to hear from us, while we continue to work on reducing wait times.

The End-to-End Review has helped us put a clearer and more deliberate focus on funding practice within City Bridge Foundation. 

Colleagues across the Foundation and our trustee, the City of London Corporation, have supported this work and our commitment to continuous improvement.

Finally, the End-to-End Review recommended that we repeat surveys of past applicants every two years, so that we can understand how the changes we are making affect the experiences of applicants and funded organisations over time.

We look forward to continuing the conversation with the sector, sharing what we learn and improving our practice further.