Pre funding outreach
and engagement full report

  • Introduction

    There is growing recognition in the philanthropic and charity sectors that engaging communities only after funding priorities are determined is insufficient. Traditional models of grantmaking have often reinforced top-down dynamics that exclude grassroots voices from shaping what gets funded and how. In response, funders are increasingly adopting practices that promote pre-funding outreach and engagement. These approaches emphasise building relationships with communities, sharing decision-making power, and co-designing funding priorities before formal funding mechanisms are launched (Fund for Shared Insight, 2022; Ubele Initiative, 2023). This literature review explores the theory, practice, benefits, and challenges associated with pre-funding engagement in charitable and philanthropic contexts. 

  • Defining Pre-Funding Engagement

    Pre-funding engagement refers to early-stage interactions between funders and prospective grantees or communities that aim to shape funding objectives, priorities, and eligibility criteria. These can include listening sessions, community consultations, open calls for ideas, or collaborative agenda-setting (Meerwissen Initiative, 2023; CEI Global, 2021). Unlike conventional consultation, which is often extractive or symbolic, pre-funding outreach seeks to establish trust and ensure community needs shape funding design from the outset (NPC, 2019; Think NPC, 2020). 

  • Theoretical Foundations: Participation, Power and Trust

    Scholars and practitioners argue that meaningful engagement before funding decisions requires addressing underlying power imbalances between grantmakers and recipients (Chow, 2018). Participatory grantmaking (PGM) and trust-based philanthropy are central to this shift. These models highlight the importance of transparency, reciprocity, and ceding power over funding priorities to people with lived experience (Gibson, 2020; Petzinger, 2024). 

    Community co-design is another important concept that underpins pre-funding engagement. Rather than inviting communities to validate existing plans, co-design enables them to define the problems, shape solutions, and inform the allocation of resources. Research suggests that when communities participate in early-stage design, the resulting strategies are more inclusive, impactful, and contextually grounded (SGUL Participatory Hub, 2023; The Catalyst, 2021).

  • Practices and Approaches

    Community Listening and Open Callouts 

    Many funders now begin funding cycles by hosting listening exercises, town halls, or feedback loops to gather insights before developing grant guidelines. The Deaconess Foundation’s community listening process helped reshape their funding priorities toward racial justice and youth empowerment (Fund for Shared Insight, 2021). Ubele’s participatory fund in Lambeth also showed that early conversations with minoritised communities changed both the language and priorities of the fund itself (Ubele Initiative, 2023).

    Co-Design of Funding Priorities 

    Co-design goes beyond feedback collection and includes shared decision-making in designing funding mechanisms. For example, Edge Fund and Camden Giving involve lived experience panels to shape eligibility, strategy, and award processes before fund disbursement (London Funders, 2024). Think NPC (2019) argues that structured co-design improves legitimacy and ensures that funding reaches communities often overlooked by traditional application-based models. 

    Flexible Timelines and Expectations

    IVAR (2022) and Centre for Effective Philanthropy (2022) emphasise that successful pre-funding engagement requires funders to adapt their own processes. If communities are invited to co-create but timelines are rigid or decision-making power is retained solely by funders, engagement risks being tokenistic. Setting clear boundaries, expectations, and roles is key to avoiding misunderstanding and disengagement (TSIP, 2023). 

  • Barriers and Challenges 

    Despite the clear benefits, many studies highlight structural and practical barriers to embedding pre-funding outreach. 

    • Time and Resource Constraints: Co-design and engagement require skilled facilitation, trust-building, and ongoing support. Many funders lack the staff capacity or budget to support this properly (SGUL, 2023). 
    • Representation and Inclusion Gaps: Engagement efforts often rely on existing networks, which can unintentionally exclude grassroots or marginalised voices. Targeted outreach is necessary to ensure diverse participation (TSIP, 2023; CEI Global, 2021). 
    • Institutional Inflexibility: Traditional risk-averse structures may resist community power-sharing. Legal, financial, or reputational concerns can limit how much authority funders are willing to share (NPC, 2019; Gibson, 2020). 
    • Lack of Evaluation Frameworks: Many organisations struggle to assess the long-term outcomes of engagement. Most metrics focus on attendance or number of consultations, rather than changes in trust, inclusion, or impact (Fund for Shared Insight, 2020). 

  • Impacts and Benefits 

    Research shows that when done well, pre-funding engagement results in more effective and equitable funding: 

    • Better Alignment with Community Needs: Funding priorities co-designed with community members are more relevant and better tailored to lived realities (NPC, 2020). 
    • Improved Trust and Participation: Communities engaged early are more likely to participate in future funding rounds, reducing the drop-off often seen in traditional models (Deaconess Foundation, 2021). 
    • Greater Innovation and Buy-in: Engaging diverse voices early creates space for new ideas and increases ownership of outcomes (TSIP, 2023; The Catalyst, 2021). 
    • Capacity and Leadership Development: Participants often gain skills in facilitation, advocacy, and decision-making, which supports long-term community leadership (YouthTruth, 2023; CEI Global, 2021).  

  • Conclusion 

    The literature clearly indicates that pre-funding outreach and engagement is a critical step toward more inclusive, equitable, and responsive philanthropy. While these practices are resource-intensive and require shifts in institutional culture, their potential for impact is significant. Funders that embrace co-design, transparent communication, and early-stage engagement can build deeper trust, enhance programme relevance, and contribute to more just funding ecosystems. Moving forward, the challenge will be not only scaling these practices but embedding them as standard within grantmaking systems. 

  • References

    • Petzinger, A. (2024). In Reciprocity We Trust. Journal of Philanthropic Marketing. https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/handle/10023/29700