Managing Director’s Blog
New for 2025, our Managing Director offers a series of articles offering advice to prospective applicants to our Spring Grant Call and Small Grants Call
“When reviewing grant applications, our team, with some exceptions, tends to gravitate towards specific areas…”
Blog Post 3
Wednesday, 17th December 2025
When reviewing grant applications, our team, with some exceptions, tends to gravitate towards specific areas. For our Director of Operations, it’s the practical- do their figures add up, can it be done in the timeframe, is it measurable. She has a deep and abiding love of spreadsheets and has been known on site visits to sneak away to count chairs just to make sure the numbers tally. For our Programmes Director it’s the methodology- what is your premise, where is the change, how will you learn. She will fight to the death for a principle and is often a firm advocate for heart over head. For me, it’s the bird’s-eye view, not just for myself, but as a proxy for our Board- have we heard/ seen/ done this before, will it take us closer to our goals, can I sell it to our ultimate decision makers. It’s a less clear-cut position and one with any number of moving parts, dependant on everything from what we said yes to last time to what crisis has just unfolded in the region where we work. Tricky? Yes. Arbitrary? No- because the key lies in your ability to tell your story, and that of the project you are proposing, in a way that helps us to believe as much as you do in its necessity.
Don’t waste space on the unnecessary
We are subject matter experts in the areas in which we work, and if your project fits within our criteria there is no reason why you should feel the need to waste valuable application space giving us a general recap of the situation on the ground. We know the ground- we’ve stood on it. That’s not to say that if your organisation’s work is extremely niche, or the issue you are addressing is related to something no one else could reasonably know, we wouldn’t welcome a bit of background. Quite the opposite, actually- the “oohs” of geeky glee when we learn something new are probably more than a little unprofessional. Otherwise, you would be much better served using your wordcount on information that will help to make your specific case. If, once you’ve stripped away all of the filler, you’re left with a bit of a thin argument, that’s the sign to either dig a bit deeper into what you’re proposing or go back to the drawing board completely. Either way, it means that you are presenting your project in the best possible context with the most appropriate information to help it succeed.
Tell your story, and tell it well
We all know that crafting a great application takes a great deal of time and effort, which is why everything we receive is read and discussed by the whole team, and given the fairest possible review. As I mentioned above, we know the landscape but might not know your particular corner of it, so learning about why you want to undertake this intervention and what your process was for designing it is always going to be of interest. What excites you about this project and what worries you if it doesn’t get done? If it wouldn’t be immediately obvious to someone outside of your organisation, think about how you can best explain it with a minimum of acronyms and jargon and a maximum of engagement. A good test is to find someone unrelated to your particular field and see if, on a basic level, they agree with what you’re proposing. Anyone can be fair game- my dentist now knows more than he ever thought possible about EU asylum resolutions, but he also asked some pretty pertinent questions which led to a true “a-ha” moment for me mid-filling.
Keep in mind all of the decision makers
For us, as it is for many grant making foundations, we present a vetted shortlist to our Board, and they make the final decisions at the end of each grant call. While they are well versed in our mission and the kind of thing that we are looking for, they understandably have varying levels of detailed technical knowledge about the work that we fund. Have you made it as straightforward as possible for us to make your case? Can we convey your premise to non-experts? In addition to the obvious reasons why we ask for specific information about things like project risks and mitigation and your organisation’s experience, we also do it to help us answer the legitimate questions our Board will ask. Is anyone else doing this? If so, why should we fund this project? Do we know that this is the best way of accomplishing what they are setting out to do? Are we confident that they can do it? The easier you make it for us to provide these answers, the more likely you are to be successful.
Blog Post 2
Thursday, 11th December 2025
I remember thinking when I was applying for grants that trusts were decidedly fickle creatures. After a few years I started to suspect that crafting a successful application was neither wholly art nor science, but rather a small combination of both with a majority portion of dumb luck.
While that might have been partly true, now that I’m sitting on the other side of the table I do see that both grantmakers and applicants somehow, often with the best possible intentions, make life unnecessarily difficult for each other. Though I can’t say the mystery has been completely solved, I do see more method to what before seemed a bit like madness. So, in an effort to clear away some of the fog, in this post I wanted to focus specifically on the main reasons we say no to an application and how you can best avoid them.
Let me preface this by stating that I speak only for myself and my colleagues at AMF, and just as when someone unwittingly mentions a brand name on the BBC, I am obliged to remind you that many other charitable foundations are out there with qualities and processes all their own! That said, let’s get rid of the low hanging fruit first:
Are you eligible? Nothing winds us up more than an application that in no way whatsoever fits the criteria of the call. It’s just rude. I don’t mean what we call “the small stretch”, like the age range being up to 18 and you work with 19-year-olds, or specifying projects of up to a year, but yours will have reporting trickling into month 13. I’m talking about the kind of insane, hail Mary passes that make us wonder if you've confused us with someone else. Projects based nowhere near the listed region, for not even tangentially related target groups, because, hey, the worst thing that can happen is they say no, right? No, the worst that can happen is we vow to never again allow you to darken our (online) door and curse your name with our dying breath. Of course, I’m exaggerating (a bit) but do keep in mind that we judge an organisation not just by the quality of their application, but also by their awareness of what we are looking for. Even if you submit an excellent proposal in the next round, we’ll still remember that you ignored what we asked last time and wonder how this attitude will translate into the way you approach things like deadline or reporting.
Moving on from the blindingly obvious to the more practical:
Are your deliverables clear and realistic? I say this in all sincerity, you would be shocked at how many times during application reviews I comment something along the lines of “I would probably like this better if I had any idea what they will actually be accomplishing”. It should go without saying that wanting to change something isn’t the same as having a plan for doing it, and project proposals without the necessary level of strategy and detail are really no more than a wish and a prayer. Oftentimes this can be a cover for an organisation’s search for much needed general operating expenses. Believe me, I sympathise but would never want you to create a new and potentially un-strategic project just to bring in a bit of income- it's a counterproductive for both of us, and you’d be better served by waiting for a more appropriate call.
Is your project competitive? This isn’t to say that making it to the short list is a matter of beating out the other applicants like for like, but rather asking if you have looked at your proposal objectively to make sure it holds up on its own merits. Is it already being done, in the exact same way, successfully by another organisation? If so, why should we support you instead? Maybe they aren’t doing it in your region, or instead of importing staff you’re going to use local workers, or you’ve found a flaw in their method and your version will be more impactful/timely/engaging. Whatever it is, you need to make it absolutely clear. Is it good value for money? While we do understand that some interventions will by their nature necessarily be more expensive than others, have you made the practical case for why and, importantly, how this is sustainable?
Is your budget, timeline, M&E, outcomes, etc., realistic? It’s like watching what up until that point was a gripping crime procedural and having the reveal in the final episode land with the cinematic equivalent of a sad trombone. No matter how engaging your premise, or how exciting your methodology, if you can’t feasibly make it happen within the timeframe/cost/environment you’ve specified then it’s a recipe for disaster, and believe me, we will see it coming. A large part of how we evaluate proposals is by charting out these stated elements to see if they make sense, and if they don’t, I’m afraid the answer will always be a no.
Is your project too broad? Another comment we make more often than we would like is that we wish the applicant had just chosen one aspect of the proposal to focus on- and do well- than trying to throw the kitchen sink at it. At best it’s just over ambitious, and at worst an effort to justify an unnecessarily high budget, but either way it comes across as ill-considered. A small, well-run, and perfectly defined project will beat out an undercooked mess every time.
And finally-
Is your proposal tailored to us? It’s a bit like getting a present with the original tag from the giver’s Aunt Lizzie still stuck inside- technically, yes, they’ve remembered your birthday but also haven't cared enough to give a gift chosen for you. I don’t just mean that you managed to do a successful find and replace to get the organisation name correct (you laugh, but...), but are there elements in it that show you’ve really thought about not only the specific call you’re answering but also what we as AMF do, how we do it, and where we want to go with our work? These are the proposals that truly stand out, and the organisations that we will continue to partner with over the long term.
Blog Post 1
Tuesday, 2nd December 2025
For those of us in the sector, we know all too well that there is no silver bullet that can make our work more straightforward, less challenging, or what would often be the best possible outcome, no longer necessary. Or, if there is, it is certainly not within our power to fire it. Most of us spend the majority of our time and energy looking for ways into a problem- advocating to those who have the power to fix it, supporting those who are affected by it, cleaning up the mess that the problem makes. Add to that the fact that our work is more often than not incremental, all too frequently completely frustrating, and just occasionally incredible, and you begin to wonder why any future recruit would look twice at what so many of us have chosen as our life’s work. But the key is in my last point- occasionally, just occasionally, the difference we are able to make is remarkable.
How do we get there? Hard work? Skill? Luck? On any given day it can be a spin of the wheel, as so many factors that affect what we do are out of our control, but the best outcomes represent a concrete change that makes a practical difference in the world around us and in the lives of those we serve. At AMF, this is where we want to focus. What one practical thing, if it could be changed, would make a disproportionate impact on your work? Systems analysts call them leverage points. In direct action work they are called points of intervention. In our office we call them fixing the fixable.
So many organisations apply to us for projects with reactively movable parts, balanced precariously on the buy in of potentially resistant agencies or communities, that are destined to be beset with the same challenges and limitations that they continually face. To a large extent this is a byproduct of the way that we are forced to work, with plans and mitigations and risk monitors for a list of factors both known and unknown, while somehow managing to weave our good work around it all.
At this point I can almost hear the collective grinding of your teeth as you pray that my next paragraph doesn’t start with another grant-splaining lecture about how innovation will save us all. Let me be clear- we’re not asking you to reinvent the wheel, just to plug the slow leak that means you are going at half speed with double the effort. Or more accurately, to tell us what you need to patch it.
It’s not really amazing that people usually need a moment just to consider how this might be possible, and also that someone might be willing to fund it. Most are working so hard to fundraise for, mitigate the challenges to, and adequately carry out the work right in front of them that there is precious little time to spare for what some might believe comes perilously close to blue sky thinking. Except it doesn’t, because in this instance I’m not talking about a cure for cancer or an end to war. While these things may be the absolute goal for us all, it’s not a one-step change. Remember, this hinges on my all-time favourite word- practical. Practical is concrete; practical is doable; and most importantly, practical can be game-changing.
After the initial stunned pause has come some pretty great answers, from strategy epiphanies to infrastructure changes. One CEO said the government enforcing the laws it already has would cause a tectonic shift in her organisation’s work, but most people weren’t aware that these currently existed so thought a whole-cloth solution needed to be found. The Head of one of our supported schools in the Middle East said that despite having solar panels, every year a huge proportion of their budget went towards the cost of buying in expensive electricity because while the panels themselves were relatively cheap, the cost of purchasing and maintaining the storage batteries was prohibitively costly as a capital expense. One of our most exciting projects at the moment was born out of frustration that special needs children are in theory entitled to attend state schools, but in practice aren’t because neither students nor teachers are prepared in a way that makes them successful in the classroom.
So, with all this in mind, what is your organisation’s leverage point? Because that’s definitely an application we’re looking forward to reading.