That old adage, ‘Don’t bite the hand that feeds you’, means that applicants for charitable funding are never in a strong position when it comes to providing criticism, however constructive, about the process. If you’re successful, the pain of the application is behind you and you’re planning for your new project. If you’re not, you’re likely to be worried about penalising your future chances.

Given that most funders are driven by achieving social good, and their staffing resources can be limited, knocking them is not generally the done thing. But charitable funding is a sector where better use of technology and a stronger focus on openness, transparency and communication could have a huge and transformative impact.

I’ve set out three key principles which, if every funder followed, would improve the quality of applications, change how decisions about funding are made, and increase the potential for making scarce money go further.

1. Engage with your audience

Funders are increasingly keen for you to show in your application how you’re going to build demand and how you’re engaging with your target audience. When it comes leading by example, however, most have a lot of room for improvement.

Whilst the worst examples don’t even have a website or provide unclear written guidance (I’m afraid the European Union is one of the worst culprits here), even some of the more enlightened funders are really terrible at encouraging two-way communication. Quite often, I resort to downloading funders’ accounts to find out who they’ve funded and for how much – simple information about their funding priorities which should be readily available on their website.

I recently wrote a fairly large Government bid where the odds of success were stacked against us. The guidance was woolly, but because the Government department encouraged phone calls, I was able to get a really clear idea of what they wanted. We adapted our original model significantly to match their needs and went on to win the bid. The Government contact I spoke to was really surprised that people had interpreted the guidance so differently and told me: “I thought it was really clear when I wrote it, but I’m realising that organisations who are new to this need more detail.”

Best practice for funders here includes:

• taking time to provide very clear, concise written guidance, and ideally asking someone outside your organisation to read it first to clarify any assumptions
• allowing individual applicants to contact you if required, and providing a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document which is made available to all applicants
• holding at least one but ideally several engagement events, either online or in different geographic locations. A current excellent example in this area is Nominet Trust, who is holding a series of web chats and face to face pre-application events for their new Social Tech Seed Fund. Innovate UK is also great at holding briefings, often filmed and made available online so that those who didn’t make it don’t lose out. One funder who I’d like to see doing more of this is Big Lottery Fund. Charities so often tell me they’ve found it hard to grasp what Big Lottery Fund wants, and more engagement would really help to close the gap between funder and applicant.

2. Improve the user experience

How wrong can you go with an online application form? Nice simple interface, designed with the user in mind?

As it turns out, very, very wrong. Recent reasons behind a rise in my blood pressure include:

• a form that wasn’t suitable for Mac users. When I’d retrieved my old laptop from the loft, I found that the application process required the latest edition of Microsoft Office, which set me back a pretty penny in an unwanted and complex update
• ridiculously short character limits for a multimillion pound bid, requiring a Masters in wordsmithing and a battle with my grammar demons as I changed all the ‘ands’ to ‘&s’ to shave off characters
• conversely, pages and pages of detailed and unnecessary information for a £10k application (including a list of all funding over £5k received in the last three years)
• an online procurement system that (in all seriousness) required you to read a user manual and watch a video before starting to enter the text.

You get the picture. Now, this is a classic example of the power imbalance. Funders have few incentives to change and make it easy for applicants. If they’re already oversubscribed, why encourage more applicants? But it comes down to making sure they’re getting the best quality applicants, not those who can invest two days in working how to navigate a complex process.

Please, please, funders, pilot the process before going live, ideally with a real application so that you can iron out issues and save everyone’s time – not least, your own. The process should be proportionate to the level of funding you’re giving out, and the application process designed with the user in mind, borrowing from the philosophy of pioneers in other sectors like the Government Digital Service.

3. Communicate more

Use social media not just to broadcast but to engage with people constantly, not just during an application process. You’ll find inspiration, get more in touch with the issues in your field, and be able to inspire others through communicating about the projects you’ve funded.

These three principles aren’t just for big funders; there are some smaller organisations who are already leading the way, such as Bethnal Green Ventures, who say on their website: ‘Have an idea but not sure if it fits with BGV? Want some advice on your application? Want to find out how good we are at making coffee? Come and meet us!’

Culture change is starting to happen. I’ve been impressed by the Charity Commission’s new website which opens up sector data (despite a few gremlins).

For my part, I’m going to be peskier, challenging funders when unnecessary barriers are put in the way. I’d love to see a revolution within the myriad of centuries-old family trusts, with their three-line websites which say: ‘Post us an outline of your proposal and if you don’t hear from us within the next three months, assume you’re not successful.’ Benevolence alone is no longer enough. With a shift in the practice of a growing number of leaders in the field, I’m optimistic that the benefits of a more modern, open and transparent form of funding will become accepted as the norm, not the exception.