Before you fund
Stage 1

Outreach and Engagement

Too many funding programmes are shaped before communities enter the room. Priorities are set, criteria is drafted, and by the time applications open, the most important decisions have already been made. Pre-funding outreach offers an alternative. It's the…

980x550px_cc_1_outreach

  • Setting the scene

    Traditional grantmaking tends to move in one direction: funders decide, applicants respond. Pre-funding outreach disrupts that pattern by creating genuine space for dialogue before a fund formally opens.

    That might mean community listening sessions, open conversations about what matters, or early engagement with organisations who rarely make it through conventional application processes. Whatever form it takes, the aim is the same: to understand need before designing the response to it.

    This isn’t just good practice for communities. Funders who invest in early listening make better decisions, reduce the risk of misalignment, and build the kind of credibility that sustains long-term relationships.

  • What the evidence tells us

    The case for pre-funding engagement is well established. Research rooted in participatory, trust-based, and relational funding consistently shows that early dialogue improves clarity, increases accessibility, and strengthens alignment between what funders intend and what communities actually need.

    But the evidence also offers a clear warning: outreach on its own is not enough. How power is shared, how feedback is handled, and whether learning genuinely shapes decisions all determine whether engagement is meaningful or merely procedural. The difference between the two is not always visible from the outside, but communities feel it immediately.

  • Key issues and challenges

    Meaningful pre-funding engagement is not quick or cheap. Building real relationships, creating safe spaces for honest dialogue, and reaching people who are rarely heard takes time, intentionality, and resource. When timelines are short, there is a real risk that outreach becomes a box to tick rather than a practice to invest in.

    Trust is perhaps the most significant challenge. Many communities have experienced consultation that led nowhere, and that history shapes how they respond to new overtures. Funders need to be transparent from the outset about what can and cannot be influenced, clear about the constraints they’re working within, and accountable for what happens to the feedback they receive.

    Reaching underrepresented groups requires deliberate effort. Without it, engagement activities tend to reach the already-connected. Working with trusted intermediaries, removing practical barriers to participation, and being honest about the limits of any single engagement process are all part of doing this responsibly.

    Internal alignment matters too. Even where frontline staff are committed to acting on what they hear, institutional structures, governance requirements, and trustee decision-making can limit how far community input shapes final decisions. Surfacing this tension early, rather than managing it quietly, builds more trust than it costs.

  • Existing approaches

    Funders have found a range of ways to embed early listening into their grantmaking. Community listening sessions, idea call-outs, early guidance events, and co-designed grant strategies all offer different entry points depending on context, capacity, and relationships.

    Participatory grantmaking goes further, enabling lived experience to shape not just programme design but the distribution of decision-making authority. Organisations like Camden Giving, the Edge Fund, and the Deaconess Foundation have shown what becomes possible when communities help set the agenda rather than simply respond to it.

    There is no single model that works everywhere. The most effective approaches tend to be those that are honest about their scope, genuinely curious about what they find, and willing to let learning change something.

  • Benefits and disadvantages 

    When pre-funding outreach works, the results are tangible. Trust deepens. Funding programmes become more relevant to real needs. Groups who might never have applied find a way in. And the relationship between funders and communities shifts toward something more mutual and durable.

    The challenges are real too. Early engagement is resource-intensive, and it requires funders to hold uncertainty and relinquish some control over the shape of their programmes. There is a genuine risk of tokenism if power is not shared meaningfully, and poorly handled engagement can cause harm, damaging the very relationships it set out to build.

    The question is not whether these risks exist, but whether funders are willing to take them seriously and design their approach accordingly.

  • Food for thought

    Communities often already know what they need. The question for funders is whether the conditions exist to genuinely hear it, and whether what is heard will shape what comes next. Pre-funding engagement doesn’t demand a perfect process. It asks for a sincere one.

Explore our recommendations

  • Involve communities early in the funding process

    After the overall purpose and key parameters of a fund have been agreed, but before applications open, funders should engage with the communities they aim to support. This engagement helps sense-check assumptions, improve clarity, and ensure that language, eligibility, and outreach approaches reflect real needs and reach a diversity of voices.

  • Set aside time and money for engagement activities

    Effective pre-funding engagement requires dedicated time and resources. Funders may draw on community advisors, equity partners, or support organisations to help test assumptions, identify access barriers, and strengthen outreach before applications open. Budget should cover facilitation, accessibility support, and where appropriate, payments for advisory input.

  • Use different ways to reach people and organisations

    Not everyone can attend a workshop or fill in an online form. Funders should use a mix of methods, including local events, online surveys, phone calls, and partnerships with trusted community groups, to reach a wider range of voices and ensure outreach reflects the diversity of those eligible to apply.

  • Be clear about what people can influence

    Explain from the outset what decisions are open to input and what is already settled, giving a brief reason where things have been decided. Being honest about the boundaries of engagement avoids confusion, sets realistic expectations, and builds the kind of trust that makes participation worthwhile.

  • Make engagement accessible and fair

    To reach everyone eligible to apply, funders should offer practical support such as translation, digital access, travel costs, and payments for people's time. Removing these barriers makes it easier for smaller and marginalised organisations to take part on equal terms.

  • Train staff to lead good engagement

    Staff need the right skills to facilitate open, respectful conversations with communities. This includes training in inclusive facilitation, active listening, and clear communication, as well as sharing honest summaries of what has been heard so participants can check understanding and correct any misinterpretations before decisions are made.

  • Check in and adapt as you go

    Engagement should not be a single event. Funders should regularly check in on both the process and the content, including how communities are experiencing the pre-application stage, what is working well, and what has been challenging. Listening to this feedback and being prepared to adapt is what makes engagement meaningful rather than procedural.

  • Track what changes as a result of engagement

    Measure more than participation numbers. Funders should actively track key themes, recurring concerns, and insights raised by communities, as these often point to wider issues in programme design or application processes. The question worth returning to is whether engagement actually changed anything.

  • Avoid tokenism

    Funders should not ask for input unless they genuinely intend to use it. This applies to engagement activities, application questions, and reporting requirements alike. Being transparent about how community input has shaped decisions, and giving appropriate credit for contributions, is what closes the feedback loop and demonstrates that involvement was real.

  • Make early engagement a normal part of funding

    Listening to communities before applications open should become standard practice, not an optional extra. Embedding early engagement as a routine part of the funding cycle helps funders test assumptions, improve access, and build relationships that lead to fairer processes and stronger applications across the board.

Read the full report on Pre-funding outreach and engagement

Access the full report

Case studies

Stages of grant making