Short grants push organizations into permanent fundraising and discourage the patient work that changes outcomes. This note explains how we think about longer commitments and where they are not the right tool.
Key points
- Longer, more flexible funding lowers cost and raises quality of delivery.
- Flexibility is matched by candour, not by more paperwork.
- Multi-year funding suits stable work, not untested ideas.
- Exit should be discussed at the beginning, not the end.
What longer funding is for
Recruiting and retaining skilled staff, building trust in a community, and testing a service properly all take longer than twelve months. Funding that ends at the point of learning wastes the learning.
What we ask in return
Not more reporting. We ask for an honest annual conversation: what changed, what did not work, what you would do differently, and what you now need. Where a plan changes materially, we expect to hear it from the grantee before we read it in a report.
Where it is the wrong instrument
An untested idea, a one-off capital purchase, or a rapid response to an emergency are better served by shorter, specific funding. Committing years of support to an unproven design can lock a team into an approach they should have abandoned.
Planning the ending at the start
We discuss what happens after the grant in the first year, not the last. That may mean deliberate handover, a plan for other income, or an agreed, dignified close. Organizations that plan an ending rarely need a rescue.