In response to the question ‘what more could we do to make our funding more accessible?’ people identified a wide range of issues and suggestions, not solely related to the commitment to simplify processes highlighted in the document.

Application process

Simpler and shorter process
87 respondents (25%) wanted a simplified application process. Some straightforwardly endorsed our commitment to do this, particularly for small grants. Others highlighted the large amount of information required from applicants, particularly at Stage 1, with some mentioning this as a particular barrier for voluntary groups, and the high cost of applying, where consultants were thought to be necessary to complete the process successfully.

43 respondents (12%) wanted a shorter timetable between application and decision, with some commenting on the impact of a lengthy process on securing and retaining match funding; 21 respondents (6%) mentioned particularly the importance of a simpler, shorter Stage I (even if this leads to an ‘early no’), and a staged application process that reduces risk for the applicant. This is linked to support for a proportionate approach (24 respondents, 7%) matching the rigour of our process to the complexity of the project and size of grant request. 23 respondents (7%) welcomed the proposal to simplify small grants, with some mentioning the need for financial help for project development at this level. There is also support for making requirements less onerous for smaller Heritage Grants (e.g. up to £250K).

‘A genuinely stage 1 application approach to projects would be very welcome, where applicants could get a steer for whether the overall concept was agreeable to HLF, particularly on medium to large scale projects. Stage 1 applications seem to require nearly as much work and resource as a full application. A scaled approach to applications would be helpful, with less detailed information required for smaller projects.’
Director, independent museum trust

‘Make your processes more friendly to groups run by part-time volunteers, with limited resources of specialist professional expertise, or the time or money to go out and hire it.’
Volunteer, IMT group

No need to change
The picture is not totally straightforward, however. 25 respondents (7%) thought there was no need to change the application process, commenting appreciatively on improvements already achieved, with many linking the value of a robust process to the quality of outcome. Some grantees mentioned favourably the positive impact of the HLF process on their organisation and their project.

‘I would be concerned that you should not make the process much easier as, although very arduous I must say we have found it invaluable for really understanding what the needs and implications of an application/project are.’
Managing Director, DCMS-sponsored museum