Grant Management for Philanthropists

Most philanthropists start with good intentions and a chequebook. That combination can do real good, but without a basic structure it can also lead to inconsistent decisions, no way of knowing what worked, and a nagging feeling that the money could have gone further.

The UK's wealthiest individuals are giving more than ever. The Charities Aid Foundation (CAF) High Value Giving report found that high-net-worth individuals in the UK each gave an average of around GBP 12,000 in 2025, more than double the median amount of GBP 5,500 in 2019. At the top end, the Sunday Times Giving List recorded that the UK's 100 wealthiest donors collectively gave GBP 3.7 billion. Yet the infrastructure supporting that giving often amounts to little more than a spreadsheet and an email inbox.

Grant management for philanthropists does not mean replicating the machinery of a large foundation. It means adopting enough structure to make confident decisions, track what happens with your money, and learn from the results. This guide covers how to do that proportionately, whether you give GBP 10,000 or GBP 10 million a year.

Why philanthropists need grant management

Philanthropy without structure is not generosity; it is guesswork. Individual philanthropists face specific risks when they give informally: decisions influenced by whoever asks most persuasively rather than where the need is greatest, no consistent way to assess whether funds were used well, and no mechanism to learn from one grant cycle to the next.

The Charity Commission's guidance on trustee duties (CC3) is clear that anyone responsible for charitable funds must act with reasonable care and skill, manage resources responsibly, and ensure accountability. Even if you are giving from personal wealth rather than through a formal charitable structure, adopting these principles protects both you and the organisations you fund.

There is also a practical argument. According to IVAR's Open and Trusting research, over 170 funders have now signed up to the Open and Trusting community's eight commitments, collectively making grants worth over GBP 1 billion in 2023-24. The direction of travel across UK philanthropy is towards more intentional, more transparent, and more relationship-based giving. Individual philanthropists who adopt even basic processes are better positioned to participate in this shift.

Structure does not mean heavy process. It means knowing what you want to achieve, having a consistent way to assess opportunities, and being able to look back at the end of a year and understand what your giving accomplished.

Choosing your giving structure

Before thinking about grant management processes, you need to decide how you will structure your giving. Each option has different implications for governance, tax relief, and administrative requirements.

Donor Advised Funds have grown substantially in the UK. The 2025 DAF Report from NPT UK found that contributions to DAFs totalled GBP 864.5 million in 2024, with charitable assets under management reaching GBP 3.1 billion, an all-time high. Grants from DAFs to charities were GBP 787.7 million, a 22.1% increase over the prior year. For philanthropists who want structure without the administrative overhead of running a trust or foundation, a DAF offers a practical middle ground.

For those who do establish a charitable trust or CIO, the Charity Commission requires registration if annual income exceeds GBP 5,000. This brings formal trustee duties, annual reporting, and regulatory oversight, but also brings credibility and access to networks that informal giving does not.

Defining your focus and criteria

The most common mistake philanthropists make is not having clear criteria before they start receiving requests. Without a defined focus, every approach feels like it deserves consideration, and decisions become reactive rather than strategic.

Start by answering four questions:

1. What issues do you care about most? Health, education, poverty, environment, arts, or something more specific?
2. What geographies matter to you? Local, regional, national, or international?
3. What size of organisation do you want to support? Large charities, small grassroots groups, or both?
4. What size of grant are you comfortable making? This determines the number of grants you can manage.

Write your criteria down in plain language. You do not need a 20-page strategy document. A single page that states your focus areas, what you will and will not fund, typical grant sizes, and how to apply is enough. This document saves you time by filtering out unsuitable requests early, and it signals to potential grantees that you take your giving seriously.

The CAF High Value Giving report found that the top cause among high-net-worth donors in 2025 was health and social welfare (supported by 79% of respondents), followed by climate and environment (73%) and development and social justice (69%). Knowing where you sit in this landscape helps you align your grants with your strategy.

Proportionate due diligence

Due diligence is not optional, even for small personal grants. The Charity Commission's guidance on due diligence, monitoring, and verifying the end use of charitable funds states that the level of checks should be proportionate to the risk: the size of the grant, the nature of the work, and how well you know the organisation.

For a GBP 2,000 grant to a registered charity you know well, proportionate due diligence might take 15 minutes:

• Check the charity's registration on the Charity Commission website
• Confirm they have filed recent accounts and annual returns
• Review their latest annual report or website for evidence of relevant activity
• Check for any regulatory actions or concerns

For a GBP 50,000 grant to an organisation you have not worked with before, you should go further:

• All of the above, plus
• Review two to three years of filed accounts, looking at financial health and reserves
• Check trustee and officer details for any red flags
• Ask for a project budget and delivery plan
• Request references from other funders if possible
• Understand their governance arrangements and safeguarding policies

The Charity Commission also provides specific guidance on grant funding organisations that are not charities, which is relevant if you want to support unregistered community groups, social enterprises, or CICs. In these cases, you need a clear written agreement setting out what the funds are for and how they will be accounted for. Understanding what a due diligence check involves in detail will help you calibrate your approach.

Grant agreements and payment schedules

A grant agreement protects both parties. It does not need to be a complex legal document. For grants under GBP 10,000, a simple letter of offer that sets out the amount, purpose, payment schedule, and reporting expectations is usually sufficient.

A proportionate grant agreement should cover:

• Grant amount and purpose: what the money is for, stated clearly enough that both sides know if it has been used as intended
• Payment schedule: whether you will pay upfront, in instalments, or against milestones
• Reporting requirements: what you expect to hear back, when, and in what format
• Duration: start and end dates for the funded activity
• Conditions: anything that must be in place before funds are released (such as matched funding or specific permissions)
• What happens if things change: a simple statement that the grantee should contact you if the project changes significantly

For larger grants or multi-year commitments, consider including clauses on financial reporting, audit rights, and the circumstances under which you might withhold a payment. But keep it proportionate. A GBP 5,000 grant does not need a 15-page contract.

Payment schedules matter more than many philanthropists realise. Paying the full amount upfront is simplest but gives you no leverage if things go wrong. Paying in instalments tied to reporting milestones creates natural check-in points. For most philanthropists making grants of GBP 10,000 to GBP 100,000, a two-stage payment (half on award, half at mid-point following a brief progress update) strikes a reasonable balance.

Tracking outcomes without overburdening grantees

IVAR's research on grant reporting is unequivocal: much of what funders ask grantees to report on is never read, never analysed, and never used to inform decisions. Before you design a reporting requirement, ask yourself what you will actually do with the information. If the answer is "file it and forget it," do not ask for it.

For small grants (under GBP 10,000), proportionate reporting might consist of:

• A brief email update at the end of the grant period (half a page)
• One or two photographs showing the activity
• Confirmation that the funds were spent on the agreed purpose

For larger grants (GBP 10,000 to GBP 100,000), you might reasonably ask for:

• A short narrative report (one to two pages) covering what was achieved, what changed, and what was learned
• Basic financial summary showing how the grant was spent
• A small number of outcome measures agreed at the start (three to five indicators at most)
• One or two case studies or stories from beneficiaries

For grants above GBP 100,000, more detailed reporting is appropriate, but even here, the emphasis should be on learning rather than compliance. Ask for honest reflection on what worked and what did not, not just a list of outputs.

The key principle from IVAR's Open and Trusting framework is that reporting requirements should be proportionate to the size of the grant, the size of the funded organisation, and meaningful to both funder and grantee. A funder giving a small grant may choose to ask for no formal reporting beyond the charity's annual report listing the grant, and instead meet or visit the organisation to hear about progress directly.

Supporting grantees beyond money

The most effective philanthropists understand that the grant itself is often less valuable than the relationship around it. This does not mean micro-managing or imposing your views. It means being genuinely available and useful.

Practical ways to add value beyond funding:

• Regular check-ins: a quarterly phone call or meeting to hear how things are going, offered rather than imposed
• Connections: introducing grantees to people in your network who could help them, whether that is potential partners, advisors, or other funders
• Honest conversation: creating space for grantees to tell you when things are not going well, without fear that you will withdraw funding
• Flexibility: being willing to adjust the grant purpose if circumstances change, rather than insisting on the original plan regardless
• Multi-year commitment: where a grantee is performing well, committing to two or three years of funding rather than making them reapply annually

Research consistently shows that trust-based approaches produce better outcomes. IVAR's work has demonstrated that funded organisations perform better when they have the flexibility to respond to changing needs rather than rigidly following a plan agreed months or years earlier. For philanthropists, this means resisting the temptation to over-specify what your money should be used for. State the broad purpose, agree some outcome indicators, and trust the organisation to deliver.

When to formalise: growing from informal giving to structured philanthropy

Many philanthropists start by making ad hoc donations and gradually move towards more structured approaches as their giving grows. The transition points are worth recognising.

You might need more structure when:

• You are making more than five to ten grants per year and losing track of commitments
• You cannot remember what happened with grants you made two years ago
• You are spending significant time on administration that a system could handle
• Family members or advisors are involved in decisions and you need a shared record
• You want to involve the next generation in your philanthropy
• Your total annual giving exceeds GBP 50,000 and the tax implications become significant

Signs you have over-formalised:

• Your application process deters small organisations from applying
• You spend more time on administration than on understanding the issues you fund
• Grantees tell you (or, more likely, tell each other) that your reporting requirements are disproportionate
• Your processes look identical to those of a foundation distributing ten times as much

The right level of structure depends on volume, complexity, and personal preference. A philanthropist making twenty grants of GBP 5,000 each year needs different tools from one making three grants of GBP 100,000. But both need some system for recording decisions, tracking payments, and understanding outcomes.

How technology can help individual philanthropists

Traditionally, individual philanthropists have managed their giving using a combination of email, spreadsheets, and memory. This works up to a point, typically around five to ten active grants, after which things start falling through gaps.

Modern grant management platforms offer philanthropists the same tools that larger foundations use, without requiring a large team to operate them. Plinth is designed to work for funders of all sizes, including individual philanthropists who want structure without complexity. It offers a free tier, making it accessible to philanthropists who are just beginning to formalise their giving.

Specific capabilities that matter for individual philanthropists:

• Application forms: create simple, proportionate application forms that potential grantees can complete online, rather than managing requests through email
• Due diligence checks: automated verification of Charity Commission registration, filed accounts, and governance arrangements, reducing what might take 30 to 60 minutes of manual checking to a few seconds
• Grant agreements: generate and manage grant agreements digitally, with e-signature support so that both parties have a clear record
• Monitoring forms: set up lightweight monitoring reports that grantees complete online, with reminders sent automatically
• AI-generated impact reports: Plinth's AI analyses monitoring data and case studies across your portfolio to produce impact summaries, useful for personal review or sharing with family members involved in giving decisions
• Fund tracking: manage multiple funds or giving themes separately while seeing the overall picture of your philanthropy

Tools like Plinth take particular care to keep processes proportionate. You can configure the level of detail you require at each stage, from a three-question expression of interest to a full application, and set monitoring requirements that match the size and risk of each grant.

Learning from your giving

The difference between philanthropy and charitable donation is intentionality. A donation responds to a request. Philanthropy pursues a goal. And pursuing a goal means learning from what you fund.

At the end of each year, or each funding cycle, take time to reflect:

• What did you fund? Review the full list of grants, their purposes, and amounts. Does the pattern reflect your stated priorities, or has it drifted?
• What happened? Read the reports. Talk to grantees. Did the funded activities take place? Were the intended outcomes achieved?
• What surprised you? The most valuable learning often comes from grants that did not go as planned. Understanding why is more useful than celebrating the ones that did.
• What would you do differently? Adjust your criteria, processes, or focus areas based on what you have learned.
• Where is the greatest need? Has the landscape changed? Are there emerging issues or underserved areas that your giving could address?

This reflection does not need to be a formal evaluation. A few hours once a year, reviewing your grants and noting what you have learned, is enough to make your giving meaningfully more effective over time.

The CAF UK Giving Report 2025 found that while total charitable giving reached GBP 15.4 billion, the number of people donating fell to its lowest level since CAF began this research, with around 4 million fewer donors than in 2019. Those who continue to give are shouldering more of the burden, with the average gift reaching GBP 72, the highest level in eight years. For philanthropists giving at higher levels, the responsibility to give well, not just to give, is correspondingly greater.

Common mistakes philanthropists make

Giving reactively rather than proactively. Responding to every request that arrives rather than seeking out the organisations and issues where your money will make the most difference. Define your criteria and go looking for the right grantees, rather than waiting for them to find you.

Confusing personal passion with impact. Funding something because it moves you emotionally is valid, but it is not the same as funding something because it will create the most change. The best philanthropy combines both, directing your passion towards areas where your funding can make a demonstrable difference.

Avoiding difficult conversations. When a grant is not going well, many philanthropists quietly decide not to renew rather than having an honest conversation with the grantee. This deprives the organisation of useful feedback and deprives you of the chance to understand what went wrong.

Underestimating the cost of change. Social change is slow and expensive. A GBP 10,000 grant will not transform an organisation. If you believe in what a grantee is doing, commit to multi-year funding at a level that makes a meaningful difference, rather than spreading small amounts thinly across many organisations.

Not tracking what you give. It sounds basic, but many philanthropists cannot accurately state how much they gave last year, to whom, and for what purpose. Without this information, learning is impossible.

FAQs

Do I need to set up a foundation to manage grants properly?

No. Many philanthropists give effectively through Donor Advised Funds, personal charitable trusts, or even direct giving with simple documentation. The 2025 NPT UK DAF Report found that DAF assets under management reached GBP 3.1 billion in 2024, suggesting that many donors find this vehicle offers sufficient structure without the overhead of running a foundation. Only formalise further if your giving volume, complexity, or family involvement demands it.

How much due diligence should I do on a small grant?

For a grant under GBP 5,000 to a registered charity, basic checks take about 15 minutes: verify their Charity Commission registration, confirm they have filed recent accounts, and check for any regulatory concerns. For grants to unregistered groups, you need a written agreement setting out the purpose and basic accountability. The Charity Commission's guidance is clear that due diligence should be proportionate to risk.

Can I fund organisations that are not registered charities?

Yes, but with additional care. The Charity Commission provides specific guidance on grant funding organisations that are not charities. You should have a written agreement, carry out proportionate checks on the organisation's governance and financial management, and verify that the funds will be used for the stated purpose. Consider making an initial smaller grant to test the relationship before committing larger sums.

How do I involve my family in giving decisions?

Start with a shared conversation about values and priorities. Many families hold an annual meeting to review their giving, discuss what they have learned, and agree priorities for the coming year. A shared platform where all family members can see applications, decisions, and outcomes helps maintain transparency. Some families assign different focus areas to different members, creating ownership while maintaining a coherent overall strategy.

What percentage of my giving should go on administration?

There is no fixed rule, but research from the Philanthropy Roundtable suggests that staffed family foundations typically spend a median of 7% on charitable operating and administrative expenses. For individual philanthropists without staff, technology can reduce this significantly. The goal is to spend enough on infrastructure to make good decisions and learn from them, without diverting excessive resources away from the organisations you fund.

How do I know if my giving is making a difference?

Ask your grantees. The most reliable evidence of impact comes from the organisations doing the work. Set a small number of outcome indicators at the start of each grant (three to five at most), and review them at the end. Supplement quantitative data with stories and case studies that illustrate what changed. Over time, patterns will emerge across your portfolio that tell you where your giving is most effective.

Should I give unrestricted or restricted funding?

IVAR's research strongly supports flexible and unrestricted funding wherever possible. Restricted grants force organisations to spend money on specific activities regardless of whether circumstances change. Unrestricted funding allows grantees to direct resources where they are most needed. If you are not comfortable with fully unrestricted grants, consider setting a broad purpose (such as "core costs" or "work with young people") rather than specifying exact line items.

How do I handle requests from organisations outside my criteria?

Politely and promptly. Having published criteria makes this easier: you can point to your stated focus areas and explain that the request falls outside them. A brief, honest response is always better than silence. If you know of other funders who might be a better fit, suggest them. This builds your reputation as a thoughtful funder even among organisations you do not support.

Recommended next pages

• What Is a Due Diligence Check? -- Understanding what proportionate due diligence looks like for funders of all sizes
• What Is a Grant Agreement? -- How to structure clear, fair agreements between funder and grantee
• Grant Management Best Practices -- Principles that apply whether you manage five grants or five hundred
• Family Foundations Manage Grants with AI -- How technology is helping family philanthropists work more effectively
• Align Grants with Strategy -- Connecting your giving to your goals

Last updated: February 2026