You register the charity. The certificate arrives. And within a fortnight, the question lands; from a trustee, a supporter, sometimes from your own head: what can we apply for? It’s the natural next move. You’ve got a cause, a board, and a bank account that needs filling, and grants look like the obvious answer.
Here’s what catches a lot of new founders out: most of the funding worth having isn’t open to you yet, and chasing it now is time you can’t get back. Not because the work doesn’t matter, but because the funder has no way to see whether you can deliver it. This article is about why that is, what funders are actually looking for, and what to build first so that when you do apply, you apply from a position of strength.
If you’re at the start of this and not sure what to build first, you can book a call, and we’ll help you work out where to begin.
Why won’t funders fund a new charity?
Because serious funders aren’t backing your intentions. They’re backing your ability to do what you say you’ll do, account for the money, and still be standing in two years. Potential doesn’t show them that. A track record does. A brand-new charity, however good its mission, hasn’t had the time to build one, and a funder reading your application has no evidence to weigh beyond a promise.
This isn’t funders being difficult. Put yourself on their side of the table. They are handling public or donated money to an organisation and will have to answer for whether it was well spent. Faced with a charity that has delivered before and one that intends to, they choose the one that has done it. That’s not unfair; it’s the same judgment you’d make when lending something valuable to someone. The question a funder is really asking is not “is your cause worthy?” It is “can you be trusted to deliver and account for this?” Those are different questions, and only the second one gets you funded.
What do grant funders look for in a charity?
The clearest way to see how funders think is to read their eligibility criteria, because that’s where they tell you in plain terms what they need before they’ll consider you. The requirements rise with the size of the grant, but the same thing sits underneath all of them: evidence you can deliver and handle money. Three real funders, from the small-charity end to the demanding end, show the pattern – and all three rule out a brand-new charity, for the same reason.
1) Lloyds Bank Foundation – even a small charity funding wants a year behind you
Lloyds Bank Foundation funds exactly the kind of small, local charity a new founder hopes to build, with unrestricted grants and development support. But its eligibility is explicit, and it stops a brand-new charity at the door. Applicants need at least one set of annual accounts showing as ‘received’ on the Charity Commission website, covering a twelve-month operating period, and a track record of actually delivering the service for at least a year. Their own criteria state plainly that pending registrations won’t be accepted. The governance basics are named too: a board of at least three unrelated trustees on the Commission record, and a bank account in the charity’s name with unrelated signatories. This is a funder built for small charities, and a charity registered last month still can’t apply, because it has no filed year to show.
2) The National Lottery Community Fund – accounts and proven impact
The National Lottery Community Fund runs a ladder of its own. Its entry-level programme, Awards for All, is deliberately designed for small and new groups, offering grants from a few hundred pounds upward, and it even waives the annual accounts requirement for organisations under fifteen months old. But look at what it still asks for: a written constitution, a bank account with at least two signatories, and twelve months of basic financial records showing you can manage money responsibly. Its larger programmes go further, wanting annual accounts and evidence you’ve already delivered; some strands require a substantial existing income before they’ll talk to you. Even the most accessible rung has a floor, and the word that recurs throughout their criteria is evidence: not what you plan to do, but what you have done and can show.
3) HMRC – the high bar, where the maths alone excludes you
At the demanding end, the criteria are strict and specific. To take one live example at the time of writing, HMRC’s Voluntary and Community Sector grant programme requires applicants to have three years’ financial history, a turnover of at least £80,000, and financial systems strong enough to track funding and report on it. It screens the people as well: no one in a position of financial responsibility can have a recent relevant conviction or disqualification. And there’s a detail that quietly excludes new charities before the mission is even read; bids are capped at 50% of the organisation’s turnover from its last audited accounts. A charity with little or no audited turnover cannot bid for a significant sum, however strong the idea. The maths rules it out first.
So the lesson isn’t “no one will fund a new charity.” Small, accessible grants do exist, and they’re the right early target. The lesson is that the bar rises with the money, and every rung of the ladder – from a £500 community grant to a six-figure programme – is asking the same underlying question: can you govern yourself and account for funds? That’s what you build before you apply, not after the money arrives.
What do you need before applying for charity funding?
Three things, in roughly this order. None of them is glamorous, and all of them are what turn “we plan to” into “we have.”
First, governance that works in practice, not just on paper. A board that actually meets, records its decisions, and manages conflicts of interest – the basic infrastructure a funder’s due diligence goes looking for. A constitution in a folder isn’t governance; a board that functions is. If you’re not sure what ‘working’ looks like as opposed to ‘existing’, my writing on how charity boards actually perform covers the difference, and our charity management and governance support is built to help new charities put it in place.
Second, financial systems that can show where money came from and where it went. Not elaborate software – a clear, reliable way to track income and spending, the thing every funder checks and every set of criteria above-named in one form or another. This is the part that makes a funder believe their money will be safe with you.
Third, evidence that you can deliver – a programme run, however small; a project completed; people helped, and a record of it. This is the part that new founders most often skip, because it feels less urgent than fundraising. But it’s the thing that turns intention into proof. A funder wants to see capacity and impact you can point to, not capacity you’re promising to develop once their money arrives. One small, genuine, well-recorded piece of delivery is worth more in an application than the most polished description of what you intend.
If you’re still at the registration stage, building these foundations in from the start – rather than bolting them on later – is far easier. Our charity setup support is designed for exactly that, and the Charity Commission’s own guidance for setting up a charity sets out the legal baseline.
Why building foundations before funding pays off
It can feel like a detour. You started a charity to do the work, not to write governance procedures and track receipts, and every month spent on foundations is a month not spent fundraising. But the months you spend getting governance right, building systems, and delivering your first small piece of work are not separate from becoming fundable. They are what becoming fundable is.
Founders who skip ahead and pour their early energy into grant applications usually get two things: rejections and no track record to show for the effort. The applications fail because the foundations aren’t there, and the time spent failing builds nothing you can use next time. Founders who build first apply later from a position of strength, and apply to funders who can actually say yes. The order isn’t a matter of preference. Get it the wrong way round, and you spend your scarce early energy on the one thing guaranteed not to work yet.
Is your charity ready to apply for grants? A checklist
Before you spend a single evening on a grant application, run these. If you’re answering “not yet” to most of them, your time is better spent building than applying.
Check before you apply
- Does your board actually meet, record its decisions, and manage conflicts, or does it exist mainly on paper?
- Can you show, clearly, where every pound of your income came from and where it went?
- Have you delivered at least one real piece of work, however small, and kept a record of who it helped and how?
- Do you meet the basic eligibility requirements of the small grants you’re eyeing, constitution, bank controls, and the months of records they ask for?
- Are you applying to funders whose criteria you actually meet or to ones whose thresholds rule you out before they read your case?
If that self-check showed more gaps than you’d like, that’s the work to do first, and it’s exactly what a free 30-minute call is for: a straight look at where you are and what to put in place before you go anywhere near a funder.
How to make your new charity fundable
Start small. Get the governance working. Run something real. Keep the records. Build the proof. The funding gets easier from there – not because you’ve found a shortcut, but because you’ve earned the standing the shortcut-seekers never have. The founders who get funded aren’t the ones who applied earliest. They’re the ones who were ready when they applied.
So before you ask what you can apply for, ask what you can show. If the honest answer is “not much yet,” that’s not a problem with your charity – it’s just the stage you’re at, and it’s the most useful thing to know. Build the three foundations, deliver one real thing, and apply from strength. If you want a clear read on where your gaps are and what to build first, that’s what a conversation is for.
