December 16, 2009
The collateral damage of the funding process
Funders such as Big Lottery and Climate Challenge Fund have provided invaluable help to communities across the country. But there’s another side to this picture – the experience of those who have their applications rejected. The local impact can be devastating and a strong sense of injustice can prevail. Anecdotal evidence suggests that application processes are often perceived as being deeply flawed. BIG is undertaking its own research into this. We think some independent research might help
Feedback on application process
Big Lottery Fund Scotland
The Big Lottery Fund Scotland office is currently working hard to develop a range of new funding opportunities, which we will launch next year.
We’ve already heard the message that our stakeholders want us to give clear decisions early in the process so that we can reduce the number of unsuccessful applicants, but we also know that sometimes we haven’t made ourselves clear about what we need to hear from applicants during the application process.
With this in mind, we’d like to hear people’s feedback on the application materials we used last time around, and our application processes in general. We want to hear peoples thoughts on:
– What were the strengths of the way BIG works compared to other funders?
– What best practice can we copy from elsewhere?
– In terms of our application form, were there any questions which were unclear, or any parts where we could improve our guidance?
– What sort of questions would help us to understand your project better?
– Which questions didn’t help you communicate your project to us?
Respond to the survey here http://www.bigblog.org.uk/