Perceptions of the Tudor Trust among grantees and
unsuccessful applicants
Introduction, objectives and methodology
nfpSynergy was commissioned by the Tudor Trust to interview its grantees and
unsuccessful applicants to:




Find out their understanding and perceptions of the Tudor Trust
Tease out the key threads of their views – both positive and negative
Understand how Tudor Trust compares to other grant-makers
Clearly set out these themes and how Tudor Trust could act on them going
forward
This report presents the findings from the research. nfpSynergy interviewed grantees
and applicants on an online survey between 29th September and 12th October 2014.
The Tudor Trust sent out 2800 invitations to the survey. 371 grantees and 449
applicants responded to the survey; an overall total of 820. The response rate was 29%.
Grantees were defined as having been successful with their most recent grant
application to the Tudor Trust; unsuccessful applicants as those who were unsuccessful
at the first stage of the application. No pending or second stage declinations were
included in the survey.
This report is structured as follows:
Section 1: The profile of your grantees and unsuccessful applicants
Section 2: Applying to the Tudor Trust
Section 3: Relationship between the Tudor Trust and its grantees
Section 4: How the Tudor Trust is perceived by its unsuccessful applicants
Section 5: Strengths of the Tudor Trust
Section 6: Where the Tudor Trust can improve
Section 7: Conclusions and recommendations
www.nfpSynergy.net020 7426 8888
[email protected]
Section 1: The profile of your grantees and unsuccessful
applicants
The sector that grantees and applicants work in
The three main sectors that grantees and applicants work in are youth (15%),
communities (10%) and mental health (10%). No other sectors achieved more than 5%.
A number were on 4%. These were:




Disability
Older people / elderly
Family / family support
Homeless / homelessness
There is little difference between the proportion of grantees and unsuccessful applicants
from the different charity sectors, suggesting the Tudor Trust does not appear prefer
applications from certain sectors over others.
Income levels of applicants and grantees, and percentage of restricted
income
65% of grantees and unsuccessful applicants have an income of under £250k.
Unsuccessful applicants are more likely to have lower incomes than grantees. Almost
twice as many unsuccessful applicants (32%) as grantees (18%) have incomes under
£50k a year. 43% of grantees and 36% of unsuccessful applicants have an income of
between £50k and £250k. 37% of grantees and 31% of unsuccessful applicants have
incomes over £250k.
Whilst grantees are more likely to have a higher income, they are also more likely to
have higher proportions of restricted income. 54% of grantees say over 60% of their
income is restricted, compared to 46% of unsuccessful applicants. Just over a third of
unsuccessful applicants (36%) have under 40% of their income restricted, compared to
26% of grantees.
Income from and number of grants a year
Grantees of the Tudor Trust are more likely to make fewer applications and have a
larger income from grants than unsuccessful applicants. 46% of grantees make fewer
than ten grant applications a year, compared to 36% of unsuccessful applicants. 58% of
unsuccessful applicants received under £50k a year from these grants, whereas only
40% of grantees earned under £50k from their grants. 29% of grantees received
between £50k and £100k from their grants, and one in five grantees earn between
£100k and £250k a year.
2
|
Relationship with the Tudor Trust
A third of unsuccessful applicants to the Tudor Trust are first-time applicants. Perhaps
unsurprisingly, those who were unsuccessful in their application are more likely to be
applying for the first time – 45% vs 33% of grantees.
38% of grantees have received a grant previously and 14% have applied before and
been successful.
30% of unsuccessful applicants have applied before without any success. One in ten
have received a grant previously and 13% have had experience of both receiving a
grant and of being rejected.
A typical grantee and unsuccessful applicant of the Tudor Trust
If we use the mean score on some of the numeric profile questions above, we can make
the following generalisations about grantees and unsuccessful applicants:
Income
% of income which is restricted
Grant applications a year
Annual income from grants
Grantee
Unsuccessful applicant
£355,219
60%
24
£122,145
£314,641
53%
33
£82,365
3
|
Section 2: Applying to the Tudor Trust
Finding out about the Tudor Trust and pre-application stages
Around athird of applicants know about the Tudor Trust because they have applied
before. A similar number found out about the Tudor Trust through the website.
The information on the Tudor Trust website on how to apply is seen by both grantees
and unsuccessful applicants as helpful. 79% of applicants find the information
veryhelpful, as do 47% of unsuccessful applicants.
The option of speaking to Tudor before submitting the first stage application is seen a
real positive for the charity and very helpful. For those who spoke with the Tudor Trust
before making an application, the vast majority found it helpful. However, 11% of
grantees and 37% of applicants didn’t speak to you and would have found it helpful if
they had known they could.
The application process
Nearly nine in ten applicants to the Tudor Trust found that the first stage questions
enabled them to explain what they wanted to get across. 10% of applicants found it
difficult to explain what they wanted to explain.
We asked applicants how long each stage of the application to the Tudor Trust took. If
we take an average of each task and add them together, we find that grantees are
spending 33 hours and 4 minutes on their first and second stage applications. On
average, unsuccessful applicants spend 24 hours and 38 minutes on their first stage
applications.
It is difficult to compare the amount of time grantees and unsuccessful applicants spend
on their applications. This is because grantees’ time will also include time spent on their
second stage applications.
Just over a quarter (26%) of unsuccessful applicants had a decision made on their
application within a month. 54% heard within one to three months. For grantees, who
have to go through the second stage process, 49% say they had a decision made within
one to three months, and 29% say they had a decision made within four to six months.
68% of all those who applied consider this to be either very or quite quick. Grantees and
applicants hold similar views on this.
83% of grantees considered the Tudor Trust to have been very helpful while making
their application and 95% of all applicants found the application process straightforward.
In summary, grantees rate their experience of the application very highly. 56% say it
was excellent and 29% say it was very good. Those who were unsuccessful in their
application are less positive, though they are not negative. 30% state that it was
excellent or very good. A third say it was good and 28% say that is was OK.
4
|
Chart 1 - How would you rate your experience of the application process?
Of the 820 grantees and unsuccessful applicants, 356 gave some additional comments
on application process. Some of the positive themes revolved around the personal
contact of the Tudor Trust during the process. Some of the more negative comments
were themed on the restrictive format of the form, uncertainty around what the Tudor
Trust were looking for and feedback on why bids were rejected.
Here are some of the comments from grantees and unsuccessful applicants on Tudor
Trust’s application process.









“The more constraints there are on number of words the harder it is to fully
communicate what we do.” (Unsuccessful applicant)
“A two page limit is welcome but also fairly restrictive if you want to explain complex
projects.” (Unsuccessful applicant)
“More specific detail about the types of organisation that are funded.”(Unsuccessful
applicant)
“It’s hard to know what grant assessors might be looking for. How do they focus
their decisions?”(Unsuccessful applicant)
“Basic feedback on application – even at stage 1 would have been
helpful.”(Unsuccessful applicant)
“Our bid was rejected with no feedback. This is unhelpful.” (Unsuccessful applicant)
“I appreciated the fact that they did not ask for too much hard data/statistics (which
are widely available to anyone) but were more interested in our views, experience,
and reasons for proposing the project.” (Grantee)
“Working with Grant Officers also helps alleviate any worries or concerns about the
application and / or application processes.”(Grantee)
“I think that Tudor Trust has a traditional application process that is easy to follow,
and is proportionate to the size of the grant and to the size of our organisation to be
5
|











able to pull together the evidence to apply.” (Grantee)
“As I said in the accompanying letter to our application, I found in all dealings with
the Tudor Trust a very welcome understanding of the needs of a small, community
led charity.”(Grantee)
“At no stage did I feel we had any guidance on the level of funding usually
considered by the Tudor trust. It was very hard to pitch our request for funding, not
knowing this. I did not want to appear greedy and ask for too much, and yet did not
want to under ask either. The most helpful part was having the trustees come out to
visit as it is all so much easier to communicate in person and on site than on appear
or on the phone.”(Grantee)
“As described earlier, I have no real concerns or administrative problems
encountered, the gathering together of all information required was tedious and all
encompassing. I believe that this is what is required from organisations such as
Tudor trust who are spending money on Charities on a day to day
basis.”(Unsuccessful applicant)
“Over 25 years, I have dealt with many finders. Tudor is the best of the lot by a
wide margin. As well as supporting us through thick and thin, they helped to shape
and develop our work. I cannot thank them enough.”(Grantee)
“Compared with other grant making trusts and the Big Lottery the process was very
straight forward and the amount of effort required commensurate with the grant
applied for. At all stages I felt that the grants officer was both interested in what we
were aiming to achieve and certainly showed that she had read all the information
submitted in detail.”(Grantee)
“Felt that Tudor Trust were very "charitable" (in the old fashioned sense), friendly
and understanding. Very refreshing these days. Lovely staff who were approachable
and understanding but mostly, helpful. The sense that they wanted to help rather
than wanted to exclude you from their application process. The latter is becoming
more and more usual in these times of austerity.”(Grantee)
“Hannah Torkington, who dealt with the application was helpful, respectful and
considerate. I had the impression that she was determined to find out exactly what
we were trying to achieve. Her approach was a marked contrast with that of other
funders.”(Grantee)
“Appreciate that they use a first stage proposal, as funding bids are extremely time
consuming. Apply for 1st stage means applicants are not wasting a massive amount
of time, to find they didn't succeed. The feedback was very quick which is useful
that you are not waiting a long time and can get on with researching other
opportunities.”(Unsuccessful applicant)
“Congratulations - reasonably straightforward and no "jargon".”(Unsuccessful
applicant)
“Didn't ring first I didn't necessarily feel encouraged to do so. Certainly didn't feel
encouraged in asking for feedback once the application was turned
down.”(Unsuccessful applicant)
“Even though we were unsuccessful on this occasion it would not put me off making
another application in the future as the Tudor Trust application process is modern,
approachable and friendly.”(Unsuccessful applicant)
6
|
Section 3: Relationship between the Tudor Trust and its
grantees
Details on grants
The largest proportion of grantees who responded to survey received a grant of
between £51k - £100k over its lifetime. 42% received a grant of this size. Just under
two thirds (39%) say there grant is worth £50k or less over the course of its lifetime and
12% say their grant is worth over £100k.
70% say their grant was awarded within the last two years. Broken down this means:



24% received their grant within the last six months
22% received their grant between six and 12 months ago
23% received their grant between one and two years ago
91% of grantees say the terms of the grant were clear from the commitment letter and
accompanying information. No grantees said they were unclear on this. 89% were
happy with the amount of information they had to provide in proportion to the size of
the grant they were given.
Grants managers are highly regarded
Almost every grantee that worked with a grants manager to develop their second stage
application found it helpful. Indeed 80% found it very helpful and 9% found it quite
helpful. Nearly one in ten (8%) grantees were unaware they could talk to a grants
manager. A number or grantees made very positive remarks how helpful it was to work
with a grants manager.





“The grants managers were very helpful and supportive throughout the whole
process and since.”
“The Grants Manager was an outstanding source of knowledgeable support.”
“The grants manager who visited was very friendly amenable and easy to talk to. It
made a big difference being able to talk face to face with someone.”
“Tudor understood our organisation well and gave us helpful advice on improving
the structure to strengthen our project. They are very helpful when it comes to
being approachable and available to ask questions. It helps to have the same grants
manager each time you apply as they already have a good knowledge of the
project.”
“Not only did the Grants manager make at ease but gave us the impression all along
the process of being interested in our vision and also gave us alternatives.”
Furthermore grantees feel that grants manager understand their organisation. Three
quarters of grantees (76%) say grants managers understand their organisation very well
and 14% say they understand their organisation quite well. This correlates with how
grantees perceive the Tudor Trust’s understanding of their charity – 90% feel the Tudor
7
|
Trust understand their charity quite or very well.
This is also a sentiment which is reflected in the open ends with grantees commenting
that their grants manager, and the Tudor Trust, understand charities and their areas of
work very well.



“Tudor Trust understand the voluntary sector. The grant manager made me feel she
had a clear understanding of my project which made the whole process easier.”
“The Trust is willing to provide core funds as well as project funding. It's great being
able to have a salary fully funded by one Trust for three years. The Trust
understands the need for full cost recovery. The Trust provides support for North
East charities.”
“Old fashioned, (in the right way), reliable, trustworthy. Kind, understanding, helpful,
charitable. Most grants are made with only numbers, tailored outputs and
outcomes, etc. In our organisation we work for quality, not quantity. We are helping
people to put their lives back together - not to tick boxes. Tudor Trust understands
this.”
Feedback and reporting back
Grantees are positive about the feedback they receive from Tudor Trust trustees in the
commitment letter. 84% value the feedback very of quite highly. Grantees are also very
satisfied with the level of reporting back that is required from them. 84% say the level
of reporting back seems about right.
One in four grantees we surveyed are yet to report back on their grant. Of those who
have reported back, 27% found it not very difficult and 30% found it not at all difficult.
5% say they found it somewhat difficult.
When we asked grantees if they would have preferred to report back on their grant in
another way, three quarters said they would not. 10% said they would. The three key
alternatives to Tudor Trust reporting back were site visits, conversations with grants
officers and using a report that many grant makers could use.




“We always value the occasional visit.”
“Would like a project visit occasionally so that Tudor can see what we do and get a
feel for the impact we are making.”
“It would be nice to report back face to face with our grants officer as a conversation
covers much more than a report.”
“As the project is funded by several funders it would have been helpful to provide
one full and detailed report for all funders, rather than different reports tailored to
each.”
Relationship with Tudor Trust
As one measure of the relationship between the Tudor Trust and its grantees, we asked
grantees how receptive they felt the Tudor Trust would be if they approached them with
8
|
a problem. The results were very positive. Over three quarters felt Tudor would be very
receptive and 10% somewhat receptive.
Grantees feel their levels of contact with the Tudor Trust are about right. Many
comments on the level of contact focused around how approachable the Tudor Trust is.
Some grantees spoke of wanting more visits from grants officers, but there is an
appreciation that they are often very busy and that this is not always possible.






“It would be good to occasionally meet up with the grant officer, but I appreciate
she is busy.”
“We would love it if someone from Tudor Trust was able to come to the odd event of
ours so that we could strengthen our relationship.”
“We can contact our grants officer if we need to and a message is always relayed if
she is not available.”
“Our grants manager is always approachable via email and telephone.”
“Yearly reporting is good. I feel that Tudor trust us to get on.”
“The light touch from the Tudor Trust underlines to us that they have confidence in
our work.”
In terms of additional support from the Tudor Trust, 37% of grantees received specific
support from their grants manager or Tudor staff. As mentioned before, having contact
with grants managers is seen as a very helpful benefit for grantees.
One in five have been signposted to useful resources and 11% said they were
introduced to other groups facing similar issues.
29% say they have had no additional support.
Grantees’ perceptions on how Tudor Trust compares to other grant makers
Grantees believe the Tudor Trust compares extremely positively to other grant makers.
Of the five projects nfpSynergy has run to date, Tudor Trust has the most positive
comparative scores from its grantees. One area in particular that grantees perceive the
Tudor Trust to be comparatively better than other grant makers is in its approachability.
81% think Tudor is better than other grant makers in this area.
9
|
Chart 2 - When you think about your experience of applying for and getting a
grant from the Tudor Trust how would you say they compare with other
grant-makers?
10
|
Section 4: How the Tudor Trust is perceived by its
unsuccessful applicants
The Tudor Trust’s unsuccessful applicants would like more feedback as to why their
applications have been unsuccessful. They would like more detail on what the reasons
were for their declination.This is a common complaint of applicants who have been
unsuccessful in their applications and one we have seen in all of the other projects we
have run.
Nearly three in four unsuccessful applicants of the Tudor Trust were left wanting more
feedback on why their proposals were not successful. 58% did not receive any feedback
and would have found it useful. 13% say they did receive feedback but it wasn’t very
useful.
Chart 3 - Did you receive any feedback on why your proposal was
unsuccessful?
We also asked unsuccessful applicants whether it was clear why the Tudor Trust
rejected their application. Only 28% say they are clear as to why their application was
unsuccessful, 39% were unclear and 23% were neither clear nor unclear.
144 of the 449 unsuccessful applicants who responded to the survey made additional
comments on this topic. The two main are a desire for clarity on the specific reasons
why an application was declined. The second was around how feedback would be
beneficial to future applications.
There are some other themes to note within these comments:

Many repeated what they had received in the Tudor Trust declination; ‘We were
informed that there is only a 1 in 10 chance and that they have to be highly
selective’.
11
|


One group in particular for whom feedback would have been useful were those who
have applied and have been unsuccessful more than once to the Tudor Trust.
For some there is frustration at how much time has been invested into the
application process, and how little time is then invested in their feedback.
Some of these quotes are listed below:











“To know if the application was well written or where it fell down - rather than
volume of applications".
“Feedback would have been useful if only to work out if the problem was the quality
of the application or the nature of our project - there is a difference.”
“I understand that the Trust has to deal with a huge number of applications, but
being given only the broadest explanation of why the application was turned down
does not help us to improve our chances next time.”
“Would have liked this, but received no feedback. When this happens you don't
know if it was something with the application or external factors that led to the
decision e.g. lots of applications.”
“Without feedback, the organisation cannot move forward and improve.”
“A quick list of options that could be ticked would be helpful e.g. too many other
similar projects / not as innovative as we would like / outside of current criteria /
liked it but just not enough funds to give a grant. This could help us secure funding
from other trusts by emphasising anything that was unclear or misinterpreted in TT
application.”
“All the letter said was that only 1 in 10 applications which do fall within their
guidelines get taken through to the 2nd stage. I appreciate the sheet number of
applicants would make giving feedback very time-consuming but just a sentence
would be helpful, to help us decide whether or not it is worth re-applying.”
“It is always disappointing when a funding application is rejected, but it is comforting
when some reference is made to your application and the reason it was unsuccessful
(even just a couple of lines in the letter), Tudor Trust did not do this. I understand
that they have limited capacity, but when significant time is put into preparing the
application, a few lines detailing the reason it was not taken forward would be very
helpful.”
“The first stage application did take some time. Verbal or written feedback on why
unsuccessful would have been very useful. I could then report back to my trustees
with clarity.”
“This is really important for any future applications (especially for a small
organisation as we put so much time into it) as we don't know whether the
application was lacking in some aspect or was unclear etc. - or was it just that TT
had already funded similar projects?”
“We have been rejected twice without explanation which makes me feel that it may
not be worth the time to apply again. However if I had some feedback and guidance
it might be really useful.”
12
|
Unsuccessful applicants’ perceptions on how Tudor Trust compares to other
grant makers
In spite of some of criticism about the level of feedback the Tudor Trust provides,
unsuccessful applicants are still more likely compare Tudor against other grant makers
positively rather than negatively. The areas where unsuccessful applicants are
particularly positive are in how long it takes for Tudor Trust to make a decision about
funding, the ease of the application process overall and how long it takes to make an
application.
Where unsuccessful applicants are more critical of Tudor is in understanding their area
of work, though the numbers of those who think Tudor is worse at this (19%) are very
similar to those who believe Tudor is better (17%) at this than other grant makers.
Chart 4 - When you think about your experience of applying for and getting a
grant from the Tudor Trust how would you say they compare with other
grant-makers?
13
|
Section 5: Strengths of the Tudor Trust
What does the Tudor Trust do well?
Of the 820 respondents who completed the survey, 620 answered the open ended
question on what the Tudor Trust do well. The responses to this question demonstrate a
perception that the Tudor Trust builds supportive, two-way relationships with its
grantees in particular, and those who do make contact during their first stage
application. We have picked out a few comments from grantees that demonstrate this
below:







“Offer a genuine two-way relationship, and unusually takes the time to offer
feedback. It is relatively a very open organisation, and appears honest with its
judgements. It seems to honour very well the criteria which it sets, and justifies its
decisions.”
“Got to know us early on and always been supportive.”
“Understand the sectors it is funding.”
“Personal face to face interaction and theability to listen to the heart and ethos of
those applying for funding.”
“Keep the relationship personal, there was a lot of phone 'catchups' and I really feel
like I got to know my grant manager.”
“Listen, support and guide. They see the concept /project and have really believe in
what we do. In our opinion they took a chance with us as a newly formed
grassroots organisation doing something new in the UK in our area of work and
believed in us when other funders said we were too new as a group. Thank you.”
“Takes an interest in the organisation. You don't feel like an anonymous applicant.
Tudor seems to have a stake in the work they fund, not just from an accountability
standpoint but wanting to be part of making a difference.”
Some unsuccessful applicants also made positive comments about the approachability of
the Tudor Trust:





“They are very approachable on the telephone, they are quick to make decisions.”
“Good relationships with applicants - even if no feedback.”
“Is supportive, encouraging and easy to work with.”
“Careful listening and constructive dialogue.”
“I think it possibly keeps in contact with its grantees and forms a partnership with its
recipients but sadly I can only guess as we did not get funding.”
Straightforward application process –for unsuccessful applicants too
The application process appears to be at best innovative and engaging for applicants,
and at worst it is straightforward and less time-intensive than the application processes
of other grant makers.

“It was just the simplicity of the approach - it was very refreshing - we also had a
visit from Trustees - that was very much appreciated - we want to have a
14
|



relationship - not just be a grant recipient.”(Grantee)
“From our limited experience, the application process is well designed and saves the
applicant time. Being staged, you don't have to invest as much time and effort as a
full application.”(Unsuccessful applicant)
“Clear application process - first stage application is a very good idea to volunteers
spending many hours of abortive time on a long and detailed
application.”(Unsuccessful applicant)
“In-depth guidelines. Although this is a 'lot' of reading (compared to most other
funders), it does make your objectives clear.”(Unsuccessful applicant)
Website is highly rated
Some grantees and unsuccessful applicants commented on the how the website was
helpful and clear.



“Plain language information on their website.”(Grantee)
“Excellent website; clear guidelines as to what it wants from grantees.”(Grantee)
“You have a lovely website and very professional looking documents.” (Unsuccessful

“Information on the web site is very clear & user friendly. Availability of helpful
staff.” (Unsuccessful applicant)
“No the website was very helpful, and Joanna de Havillan from Tudor Trust has been
extremely helpful throughout.” (Grantee)

applicant)
Core funding appreciated
A handful of grantees and unsuccessful applicants raised the Tudor Trust’s commitment
to core funding. Given many funders are unable to provide core funding, this is a
positive.

“Allocate a grants manager to each charity. Willingness to understand the necessity
of core funding.”(Grantee)
“Support for core funding, which is vital for third sector organisations.”

“Assisting organisations with core funding.” (Unsuccessful applicant)

(Unsuccessful applicant)
15
|
Section 6:Where the Tudor Trust can improve
Where might the Tudor Trust need to improve?
There were 601 comments in response to this question. A range of themes came out
and are developed below.
Lots of grantees can’t think of what could be improved
A mark of how highly grantees regard the Tudor Trust is that a number of them
answered this question by stating they could not think of anything the Tudor Trust could
improve.




“Can’t really think of anything. We have been 100% satisfied.”
“Struggling to find anything as our relationship with you has always been open and
positive.”
“The Tudor Trust has really been the best grant experience we have had in the past
10 years and I can’t think of ways to improve on it.”
“Our experience with them has been faultless.”
Building ongoing relationships
Both grantees and unsuccessful applicants wish to develop their relationships with the
Tudor Trust further. For grantees this means more site visits and more chances for
personal reporting back. For unsuccessful applicants this means the Tudor Trust
communicating that there are channels open to them for personal contact.








“Let people know that they can phone or even visit.” (Unsuccessful applicant)
“Visiting organisations prior before submitting a first stage application, to visually see
and assess the eligibility.”(Unsuccessful applicant)
“If they could visit annually (we have a 3 year grant) that would be very
encouraging. We are run by and for people with learning difficulties and a visit is
really the only way to give them an opportunity to have their say.” (Grantee)
“Reporting back - Personal contact with the project maybe with a visit during the
grant period? The 12 month reporting back on the grant - giving us a guide on how
much information you actually want and any specific details.”(Grantee)
“Not sure but perhaps arrange a visit within the 3 years funding.”(Grantee)
“It would be good if they could attend certain events when invited. We understand
time restraints and the fact they are London based but it would be good if they could
come even once a year.” (Grantee)
“Communication has been only once a year. Would like them to celebrate their
success with us. E.g. attend events that are celebrating the success of what the
funding has achieved. Work with us to look at ongoing support and funding from
Tudor. Also the reporting is ok but too narrative - a proforma might be
helpful.”(Grantee)
“More support and advice during the period of the grant. An opportunity to explore
mid term what might be happening for the organisation. Presently the funding and
16
|

NHS seen is all over the place.” (Grantee)
“More time for dialogue and relationship building with grantees (we are not Londonbased so appreciate this would require commitment) Have a Scottish contact and
base (but please don't contract this out to another grant making institution, they
don't do it so well as Tudor).” (Grantee)
Unsuccessful applicants desperate for more feedback and advice on how to
improve applications
The overwhelming response from unsuccessful applicants on this question is for more
feedback. We have explored this already in this report but below word cloud highlights
how strong the sentiment is.
Chart 5–“Where might the Tudor Trust need to improve?” (Among
unsuccessful applicants)
Some desire for more online
Some grantees and unsuccessful applicants commented that they would like to see the
Tudor Trust move some of its procedures online.





“An online application process with simple stage one and feedback given with at
least 5 reasons why the application failed. Maybe give themes or strands to the
funding i.e. environment, education, NEETs, etc.” (Unsuccessful applicant)
“Doing more on-line would be good, although the information on the website is very
good.” (Grantee)
“We have found it helpful to apply on line at times and upload accounts and reports
electronically. This is something the Tudor Trust could consider.” (Grantee)
“Could you do more online?” (Grantee)
“Provide an online portal for applications and reach out to more
17
|

grassrootorganisations.” (Grantee)
“It would be better if they had an online (and paper free) application process.”
(Unsuccessful applicant)
General areas for improvement
As one would expect when there are 601 responses, there were a number of other
comments that did not fit into the above, but are worth highlighting. Some of these
themes included having more of a presence in the sector, ‘tightening up’ Tudor’s
monitoring programs and better communication.






“Having more presence in presenting at voluntary sector conferences and seminars
re grants and the areas they support.” (Grantee)
“I can only speak for our small organisation, my answer to Q42 says it all - we really
do appreciate and rely on Tudor, not just for the money, but because as soon as we
say we are being funded presently by Tudor to other funding organisations it
immediately gives us credibility. Please continue to support small organisations like
ourselves.” (Grantee)
“Though this would mean more work for grantees, there may be ways in which TT
can establish monitoring frameworks to capture data that would enable TT's own
policy work.” (Grantee)
“5 year grant programmes?” (Grantee)
“A regional representative would be a good move, especially for those of us who are
further afield.” (Grantee)
“Over-involvement? - I'm a little nervous how much they might want to be involved
as the grant is spent. My concern is that they might want to be over-involved.”
(Grantee)



“Better communication about itself and what and how much it can fund.” (Grantee)
“Its monitoring, because charities can easily hide things and not be honest if they
want to. Who wants to report bad news?” (Grantee)
“Tudor is very kind and lovely. That suits us fine. However with funds at a premium
maybe they need to be meaner in terms of requiring set outcomes!” (Grantee)
18
|
Section 7: Conclusionsand recommendations
Conclusion 1: The Tudor Trust has a very strong reputation and is very highly
regarded by its grantees and unsuccessful applicants
These conclusions and recommendations should be viewed through the lens that the
Tudor Trust is perceived to be one of the best grant makers in the UK. As such, both
grantees and unsuccessful applicants have high demands when interacting with the
Tudor Trust. This reveals itself in a number of ways, be it a grantee asking for more
personal contact, such as additional site visits, to demonstrate their success to Tudor, or
an unsuccessful applicant requesting more feedback on their application, the Tudor
Trust is perceived to have a strong reputation and thus it its grantees and unsuccessful
applicants set it high standards.
Conclusion 2: Application process straightforward, though some desire for
online
Grantees and unsuccessful rate the application process favourably on a number of
measures. Nearly nine in ten consider the information about how to apply on the
website helpful and a similar number consider the first stage questions to be appropriate
and enabling. The vast majority of grantees and the majority of unsuccessful applicants
consider the application process to be excellent, very good or good.
53% of unsuccessful applicants say they would prefer to apply online (57% of grantees
would prefer not to). Those in favour of online applications cite efficiency and ease of
use as their main reasons.
Recommendation: Continue to observe the sentiment of all applicants towards online
applications. This could be a topic to explore with further research if the Tudor Trust is
considering switching to an online application form, and to explore why an online
application is perceived by some to be an attractive alternative.
Conclusion 3: All applicants value personal contact, though some unaware
they can get in touch and grantees want more
Grantees and unsuccessful applicants note that the Tudor Trust is approachable.
Grantees are very impressed by the personal contact they receive from grants
managers. Though as stated in conclusion 1, such is the reputation of the Tudor Trust
that there is always a desire for more.
37% of unsuccessful applicants were unaware they could speak with the Tudor Trust
before they submitted their first stage application and would have found it useful.
When asked how the Tudor Trust could improve, some grantees responded by
requesting more site visits. These grantees value the guidance and expertise Tudor can
offer, and also want to celebrate their successes together with Tudor.
19
|
Recommendation:Ensure that communication isto all applicants that they are able to
speak with the Tudor Trust before they submit their first stage application. Furthermore,
consider and review internally whether all grantees are receiving site visits, and if
multiple site visits would be feasible or appropriate.
Conclusion 4: Unsuccessful applicants desperate for more feedback
58% of unsuccessful applicants did not receive any feedback on why their proposal was
unsuccessful and say they would have found it useful. This is the one single largest
complaint of unsuccessful applicants. Some feel angry that the time and effort they have
invested into their application has not been matched by what they perceive to be a
straightforward task for Tudor to do – give reasons as to why they have been
unsuccessful. As one unsuccessful applicant summarises, “I appreciate that it takes time
to provide feedback but even one or two sentences indicating why an application was
unsuccessful would be extremely helpful.”
Those who apply to Tudor want to receive a grant from the Tudor, with all of the
benefits that that brings, so feedback as to why they have been unsuccessful is essential
to them.
Recommendation:Providing feedback to unsuccessful applicants can be very timeconsuming, particularly if it diverts time away from other core services within the Tudor
Trust. However, by not providing feedback, the Tudor Trust leaves itself open to
criticism from unsuccessful applicants. We suggest discussing internally what appetite
and resource there is for providing feedback, and communicating accordingly.
It appears that unsuccessful applicants tend to be making more applications and
receiving less money from them. Tudor Trust could potentially provide some
unsuccessful applicants with training, or send some on training, on how to write
stronger applications. This could be considered for those who have applied to the Tudor
Trust multiple times and been unsuccessful. As one unsuccessful applicant suggested:
“Perhaps you could run a sort of short work shop re applying for Tudor Trust
grants.”
Conclusion 5: Could the Tudor Trust be doing more within the sector?
When asked how the Tudor Trust could improve or which grant makers Tudor could
learn from, many grantees said that other grant makers could learn from the Tudor
Trust. In addition, grantees in particular consider the Tudor Trust to be much better
than other grant makers in areas such as its approachability, treating grantees with
respect and understanding grantees’ areas of work.
Recommendation:This recommendation is posed more as a question, with such a
strong reputation in grant making, could the Tudor Trust be doing more to share its
knowledge of grant making within the sector? Could it be more active holding events
with other grant makers?
20
|