Glossary of Key Grantmaking Terms

Grantmaking has its own vocabulary, and it is not always obvious what a term means even if you have been working in the sector for years. Funders, applicants, and evaluators frequently use the same words to mean slightly different things, or introduce jargon that obscures rather than clarifies. That matters because unclear language creates real barriers. When a funder asks for "outcomes data" in a monitoring report, does that mean the same thing as the "impact evidence" another funder requested last month? When a grant agreement references "proportionate due diligence," what level of scrutiny should an applicant actually expect?

UK trusts and foundations distributed approximately 8.2 billion pounds in grants in 2023-24, a 12 per cent increase on the previous year (UKGrantmaking, 2025). That money flows through a system built on shared terminology, yet there is no single authoritative dictionary for the sector. The Charity Commission, the Association of Charitable Foundations (ACF), and the Institute for Voluntary Action Research (IVAR) all use slightly different language in their guidance documents. Over 300 funders now publish open grants data through 360Giving, but the accompanying definitions are not always consistent.

This glossary brings together more than 80 terms used across UK grantmaking. Every definition is written in plain English, oriented toward the UK nonprofit context, and grouped alphabetically so you can find what you need quickly.

A: Accountability to Assessment

Accountability

The obligation to explain and justify how funds have been used. In grantmaking, accountability runs in multiple directions: funders are accountable to their trustees and regulators, grantees are accountable to funders, and both should be accountable to the communities they serve. The Charity Commission requires trustees to demonstrate accountability through annual reporting and proper record-keeping.

Additionality

The extent to which a grant produces results that would not have happened without the funding. A key consideration for funders evaluating whether their money is genuinely making a difference rather than subsidising activity that would have occurred anyway.

Application Form

The document (paper or digital) through which an organisation formally requests funding. Application design has a significant impact on who applies: research from IVAR found that complex, jargon-heavy forms can deter smaller organisations from applying, narrowing the pool of potential grantees. A well-designed form collects what the funder needs to make a decision without imposing disproportionate burden.

Appraisal

A structured review of a grant application to determine whether it meets the funder's criteria. Often used interchangeably with "assessment" but sometimes refers specifically to an initial screening stage before full assessment.

Assessment Framework

A set of criteria, scoring methods, and processes used to evaluate grant applications consistently. A strong framework reduces subjectivity and ensures that all applications are measured against the same standards. See our guide to assessment frameworks for more detail.

Audit Trail

A chronological record of all decisions, communications, and transactions across the grant lifecycle. Audit trails demonstrate who did what and when, providing evidence of proper governance. The Charity Commission's compliance toolkit specifically references audit trails as a component of good grant-making practice.

Award Letter

The formal notification sent to a successful applicant confirming the grant, its amount, duration, and any conditions attached. Distinct from the grant agreement, which typically follows and contains more detailed terms.

B: Baseline to Budget Variance

Baseline

A measurement taken before a project starts, against which future progress is compared. Without a baseline, it is difficult to demonstrate that change has occurred. Funders increasingly ask grantees to collect baseline data at the start of a funded project so that outcomes can be quantified later.

Beneficiary

The person or group who ultimately benefits from a funded project. In grantmaking, the direct beneficiary is typically the individual receiving a service, while the grantee organisation acts as an intermediary. Some funders distinguish between direct beneficiaries (people who participate in a programme) and indirect beneficiaries (people who benefit as a secondary result).

Budget Heading

A category within a grant budget, such as staffing costs, overheads, travel, or equipment. Funders may specify which headings they will and will not fund.

Budget Variance

The difference between what was budgeted and what was actually spent. Funders normally expect grantees to report significant variances, typically anything above 10 per cent of a budget heading. Large unexplained variances can trigger additional scrutiny or clawback provisions.

C: Capital Grant to Core Funding

Capital Grant

Funding for physical assets such as buildings, vehicles, or equipment, as distinct from revenue grants that fund ongoing running costs. Capital grants often have specific conditions around asset ownership, maintenance, and disposal.

Clawback

A contractual provision allowing a funder to recover some or all of a grant if conditions are not met. Common triggers include failure to deliver agreed outputs, misuse of funds, or organisational closure. Most grant agreements include clawback clauses, though they are rarely exercised in practice.

Conflict of Interest

A situation where a person involved in a funding decision has a personal, professional, or financial interest that could influence their judgement. Good governance requires funders to have clear policies for declaring and managing conflicts. The Charity Commission guidance states that trustees must act solely in the charity's interests and manage any conflicts that arise.

Core Funding

Unrestricted grants that support an organisation's general running costs rather than a specific project. Core funding covers salaries, rent, utilities, and other operational expenses. Despite its importance to organisational sustainability, core funding remains relatively uncommon: the NCVO UK Civil Society Almanac 2024 found that voluntary sector income from grants has been declining as a proportion of total income.

Cost Recovery

See Full Cost Recovery.

Counterfactual

What would have happened in the absence of the funded intervention. Establishing a credible counterfactual is central to rigorous impact evaluation but is often difficult and expensive to achieve, particularly for small grants.

D: Deliverables to Due Diligence

Deliverables

The specific products, services, or results that a grantee commits to providing. Deliverables may be outputs (such as number of training sessions held) or outcomes (such as percentage of participants reporting improved skills).

Designated Fund

Money set aside by a charity's trustees for a particular purpose, but which remains legally unrestricted. Unlike restricted funds, the designation can be changed by the trustees at any time.

Disbursement

The actual transfer of grant funds from funder to grantee. Some funders disburse the full amount upfront; others release funds in instalments linked to milestones or satisfactory reporting.

Distance Travelled

A measure of the progress an individual has made from their starting point, regardless of whether they have achieved a fixed outcome threshold. Distance travelled is particularly important in work with people facing complex barriers, where achieving a "hard" outcome like employment may take longer than a single grant period. See our guide on distance travelled for more detail.

Due Diligence

The checks a funder carries out before awarding a grant to confirm the applicant's identity, legal status, financial health, governance arrangements, and risk profile. The Charity Commission's guidance on due diligence states that the level of checks should be proportionate to the size and risk of the grant (GOV.UK, 2024). Checks typically include verifying charity registration, reviewing accounts, confirming safeguarding policies, and assessing governance structures such as having at least three unrelated trustees.

E: Eligibility Criteria to Expression of Interest

Eligibility Criteria

The minimum requirements an organisation must meet to apply for a grant. Common criteria include charity registration status, geographic area, income thresholds, and alignment with the funder's stated priorities. Clear eligibility criteria save time for both funders and applicants by reducing the number of ineligible applications.

End-of-Grant Report

The final report submitted by a grantee at the conclusion of a funded project, summarising what was achieved, what was spent, and what was learned. Also called a completion report or final report.

Evaluation

A systematic assessment of a project's design, implementation, and results. Evaluation goes beyond monitoring by asking not just "what happened?" but "why did it happen?" and "what can we learn?" Evaluation can be internal (conducted by the grantee), external (conducted by an independent evaluator), or participatory (involving beneficiaries).

Expression of Interest (EOI)

A brief, preliminary application that allows a funder to screen potential applicants before inviting a full proposal. EOIs reduce burden on applicants by ensuring only likely-to-be-funded organisations invest time in a detailed application.

F: Full Cost Recovery to Funder Collaboration

Full Cost Recovery

The principle that grants should cover the true cost of delivering a project, including a fair proportion of overheads such as management time, rent, IT, and finance. Without full cost recovery, organisations effectively subsidise funders by absorbing indirect costs. ACF has advocated for funders to adopt full cost recovery as standard practice.

Fund

A defined pool of money from which grants are awarded, often with specific thematic, geographic, or demographic criteria. A single funder may operate multiple funds.

Funder Collaboration

When two or more funders work together to fund a programme, share learning, or align their requirements. Collaboration can reduce duplication for grantees. Over 300 funders now publish data through 360Giving (360Giving, 2024), making it easier to identify where collaboration is possible.

G: Governance to Grant Lifecycle

Governance

The systems, structures, and processes by which an organisation is directed and controlled. For grant applicants, governance typically means having an appropriate legal structure, a functioning board of trustees or directors, and clear policies for financial management, safeguarding, and conflicts of interest. The Charity Commission regulated 102 billion pounds of charity income in 2024-25 (GOV.UK, 2025), with governance standards forming a core part of its regulatory framework.

Grant Agreement

A legally binding document setting out the terms and conditions of a grant, including the amount, duration, reporting requirements, permitted expenditure, and clawback provisions. Both parties sign the agreement before funds are disbursed. See our guide on grant agreements for a detailed breakdown.

Grant Lifecycle

The complete sequence of stages a grant passes through, from programme design and application, through assessment, award, monitoring, and reporting, to closure and evaluation. Understanding the full lifecycle helps both funders and grantees anticipate what is required at each stage. See our guide on full-cycle grant management for more detail.

Grant Panel

A group of people, usually including trustees, staff, and sometimes external experts, who review assessed applications and make funding decisions. Panel composition and decision-making processes are a key governance consideration.

H: Human-in-the-Loop to Hypothesis

Human-in-the-Loop

An approach where artificial intelligence or automated systems assist with tasks such as application screening, data extraction, or report generation, but a person retains responsibility for final decisions. This is increasingly relevant as funders adopt technology. Tools like Plinth use AI to draft reports and extract data from documents while keeping grant managers in control of all funding decisions.

Hypothesis

In the context of grantmaking, a testable statement about the expected relationship between an intervention and an outcome. For example: "Providing one-to-one mentoring for 12 weeks will improve participants' confidence, as measured by a validated self-assessment tool." Hypotheses are central to robust evaluation design.

I: Impact to Intermediary

Impact

The broader, longer-term change that a project contributes to, beyond its immediate outcomes. Impact is typically harder to measure and attribute than outcomes because it unfolds over a longer timescale and is influenced by many factors beyond the funded project. Not all funders require impact measurement, particularly for smaller grants.

Indicator

A specific, measurable piece of evidence used to track progress toward an outcome. For example, if the outcome is "improved mental wellbeing," an indicator might be "percentage of participants reporting reduced anxiety on a standardised scale."

In-kind Contribution

A non-cash resource contributed to a project, such as volunteer time, donated equipment, or free use of premises. Some funders accept in-kind contributions as part of match funding requirements.

Intermediary

An organisation that receives a grant and then distributes smaller grants to other organisations. Community foundations, infrastructure bodies, and regranting charities are common intermediaries in the UK. The 46 accredited UK community foundations collectively distributed 184.4 million pounds in 2023-24 (UKCF, 2024).

K-L: KPIs to Logic Model

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

Quantifiable measures used to evaluate the success of a project or programme against its objectives. KPIs should be specific, measurable, and directly linked to the funded activity.

Learning Partner

An external organisation engaged to help a funder or grantee reflect on and learn from their work. Learning partners sit somewhere between evaluators and consultants, combining rigorous analysis with developmental support.

Letter of Intent

A non-binding document from a funder indicating their intention to provide funding, often issued before a formal grant agreement is finalised. Letters of intent may be required by other funders as evidence of match funding.

Logic Model

A visual representation showing the logical sequence from inputs (resources) through activities and outputs to outcomes and impact. Logic models describe what a programme does and what it expects to achieve. They are distinct from theories of change, which explain why the approach is expected to work. According to NPC (New Philanthropy Capital), logic models are typically constructed after a programme is developed as a way of describing it, whereas theories of change are most useful when considered before programme development.

M: Match Funding to Monitoring

Match Funding

A requirement for the grantee to secure additional funding from other sources, often expressed as a ratio (such as 1:1, meaning the grantee must raise one pound for every pound granted). Match funding requirements are common in statutory funding and some trust programmes but can disadvantage smaller organisations with less access to other funders.

Milestone

A significant point or event in a project's timeline, often linked to disbursement of funds. Milestones might include completing recruitment, delivering a certain number of sessions, or submitting a mid-term report.

Monitoring

The routine collection of data during project delivery to track progress against agreed plans and targets. Monitoring is distinct from evaluation: monitoring asks "are we on track?" while evaluation asks "did it work and why?" UK charities collectively spend an estimated 15.8 million hours per year on funder reporting (Plinth, 2024), much of which relates to monitoring requirements. The average grant report takes approximately 40 hours to complete. Proportionate monitoring matches the level of reporting to the size and risk of the grant. See our guide on monitoring reports for practical advice.

Multi-Year Funding

Grants that span more than one financial year, providing greater stability for grantees and allowing longer-term planning. IVAR's Open and Trusting Grant-making initiative encourages funders to offer multi-year funding where possible.

Outcomes, Outputs, and Impact: What Is the Difference?

One of the most common sources of confusion in grantmaking is the relationship between outputs, outcomes, and impact. The table below clarifies the distinctions.

The key distinction is that outputs describe volume (how much was done), outcomes describe change (what difference it made to people), and impact describes contribution (what broader shift the project helped bring about). Most funders now ask for outcomes rather than just outputs, but the level of evidence expected should be proportionate to the size of the grant.

O-P: Open Data to Proportionality

Open Data

Grant information published in a standardised, machine-readable format so that anyone can access, analyse, and reuse it. The 360Giving Data Standard is the UK's primary open data standard for grants. More than 300 funders have published data through the standard as of 2024, covering grants to over 400,000 organisations.

Overhead

See Core Funding and Full Cost Recovery.

Payment Schedule

The agreed timetable for disbursing grant funds. Payments may be made as a single lump sum, in regular instalments, or contingent on milestone achievement.

Pipeline

The flow of applications at various stages through a funder's process. Managing the pipeline effectively means knowing how many applications are at each stage and where bottlenecks exist.

Programme-Related Investment (PRI)

An investment made by a foundation primarily to further its charitable mission rather than to maximise financial return. PRIs include loans, equity investments, and guarantees made on favourable terms. They are distinct from grants because the foundation expects some financial return, and distinct from standard investments because the primary purpose is charitable.

Proportionality

The principle that the level of application requirements, due diligence checks, monitoring, and reporting should match the size, complexity, and risk of the grant. A 2,000-pound community grant should not require the same paperwork as a 200,000-pound multi-year programme. Both ACF and IVAR have published guidance emphasising proportionality as a cornerstone of good grantmaking practice. The Foundation Practice Rating, which assesses 100 UK foundations annually on transparency, accountability, and diversity, found in its 2025 report that the sector is improving gradually but many foundations still impose disproportionate requirements.

R: Regranting to Risk Register

Regranting

The practice of one organisation receiving a grant and then distributing smaller grants to others. See Intermediary.

Reporting Period

The timeframe covered by a monitoring or progress report. Common periods are quarterly, six-monthly, or annually. Misaligned reporting periods across multiple funders are a significant source of administrative burden for grantees.

Restricted Funding

A grant that must be spent on a specific project, activity, or purpose as defined by the funder. The charity cannot redirect restricted funds to other uses without the funder's permission. Restricted funding is legally distinct from unrestricted funding in charity accounting. See our guide on restricted vs unrestricted funding for a full explanation.

Revenue Grant

Funding for an organisation's running costs or project delivery costs, as opposed to capital expenditure on physical assets. Most grants in the UK are revenue grants.

Ring-Fencing

Setting aside a specific portion of a fund for a particular purpose, geography, or applicant type. For example, a funder might ring-fence 30 per cent of a programme for organisations led by people from racialised communities.

Risk Appetite

The level of risk a funder is willing to accept in pursuit of its charitable objectives. Funders with a higher risk appetite may be more willing to fund innovative, unproven approaches or early-stage organisations without track records.

Risk Register

A document listing identified risks, their likelihood and potential impact, and the mitigations in place. Some funders require grantees to maintain and update a risk register throughout the grant period.

S-T: Safeguarding to Trust-Based Philanthropy

Safeguarding

Policies and practices designed to protect children, young people, and adults at risk from harm. Funders routinely check that applicants have appropriate safeguarding policies as part of due diligence. ACF and the Funder Safeguarding Collaborative have published a framework outlining minimum safeguarding standards for foundations.

Scoring Matrix

A structured tool used by assessors to rate applications against predefined criteria, typically using a numerical scale. Scoring matrices improve consistency and transparency in funding decisions.

Sustainability

In grantmaking, the ability of a project or organisation to continue operating after the grant ends. Funders frequently ask applicants to describe their sustainability plan as part of the application.

Theory of Change

A comprehensive description of how and why a desired change is expected to happen. Unlike a logic model, which describes the sequence of activities leading to outcomes, a theory of change explains the causal mechanisms and assumptions underlying the approach. According to NPC, a theory of change starts with the desired impact and works backwards to determine the best interventions, whereas a logic model maps forward from activities to results. See our guide on theories of change for a step-by-step approach.

Trust-Based Philanthropy

An approach to grantmaking that centres trust in the funder-grantee relationship, characterised by multi-year unrestricted funding, simplified applications, and streamlined reporting. In the UK, IVAR's Open and Trusting Grant-making initiative has seen over 140 funders sign up to its eight commitments to adopt more trusting practices (IVAR, 2025). The approach recognises that requirements and restrictions can remove power and autonomy from organisations that are closer to community needs than funders are.

U-Z: Underspend to Zero-Based Budgeting

Underspend

The amount of a grant that remains unspent at the end of the grant period. Grant agreements normally specify what happens to underspends: options include returning the money to the funder, carrying it forward into a subsequent period, or reallocating it with the funder's agreement.

Unrestricted Funding

A grant with no conditions on how it is spent, allowing the recipient organisation to use it wherever the need is greatest. Unrestricted funding supports organisational resilience and is central to trust-based philanthropy. Despite growing advocacy for unrestricted giving, the majority of UK grants remain restricted to specific projects or activities.

Virement

The transfer of funds between budget headings within a grant. Most grant agreements specify a threshold (often 10 per cent) above which virements require the funder's prior approval.

Whole-Life Cost

The total cost of a project including not just the direct delivery costs but also management, overheads, evaluation, and any ongoing costs after the grant ends. See Full Cost Recovery.

Zero-Based Budgeting

A budgeting approach where every expense must be justified from scratch for each new period, rather than simply adjusting the previous year's budget. Some funders use zero-based budgeting principles when assessing grant applications to ensure that every budget line is necessary and realistic.

FAQs

Are these definitions used consistently across all UK funders?

Not always. While the core concepts are widely shared, individual funders may use terms differently or have their own definitions in their guidance documents. Always check the specific funder's published guidance and grant agreement for how they define terms. The lack of universal definitions is one reason why reporting to multiple funders is so time-consuming.

What is the difference between an outcome and an output?

An output is a countable, direct product of an activity (such as "12 workshops delivered"), while an outcome is the change that results from those activities (such as "participants report increased confidence"). Outputs measure volume; outcomes measure difference. Most funders now prioritise outcomes over outputs.

Does due diligence mean the same thing for every funder?

No. The Charity Commission's guidance states that due diligence should be proportionate to the size and risk of the grant. A small community grant might only require basic checks on charity registration and a recent set of accounts, while a large multi-year grant might involve financial health assessments, site visits, and reference checks.

What is the difference between restricted and unrestricted funding?

Restricted funding must be spent on a specific purpose defined by the funder and is legally ring-fenced in charity accounts. Unrestricted funding can be spent at the trustees' discretion on whatever the charity needs most. Core costs like rent and salaries are typically harder to fund through restricted grants.

What does proportionate mean in grantmaking?

Proportionality means matching the level of requirements to the size, complexity, and risk of the grant. A 1,000-pound grant should not require a 20-page application form or quarterly financial reports. Both ACF and IVAR have published guidance calling on funders to reduce disproportionate burden on applicants and grantees.

How is a theory of change different from a logic model?

A logic model maps the sequence from inputs through activities and outputs to outcomes. It describes what happens. A theory of change explains why each step is expected to lead to the next, including the assumptions and evidence underpinning the approach. In practice, many funders use the terms interchangeably, but they serve different purposes.

What does trust-based philanthropy look like in practice?

Trust-based philanthropy typically involves providing unrestricted, multi-year grants with simplified applications and reporting, building genuine relationships rather than transactional oversight, and trusting grantee organisations to make decisions about how best to use funds. In the UK, IVAR coordinates a community of over 140 funders committed to open and trusting grant-making.

Can technology help manage grantmaking terminology consistently?

Yes. Grant management platforms like Plinth use standardised fields and templates that enforce consistent terminology across applications, assessments, and reports. This means everyone involved in a grant programme, from applicants to panel members to monitoring officers, is working with the same definitions. Plinth offers a free tier for smaller organisations getting started.

Recommended Next Pages

• What Is Full-Cycle Grant Management? — A walkthrough of every stage from application to evaluation
• What Is a Theory of Change? — How to build and use a theory of change for your programmes
• What Is Restricted vs Unrestricted Funding? — Understanding the legal and practical differences
• How to Run a Modern Grants Programme — Best practice for funders modernising their approach
• What Is an Assessment Framework? — Designing consistent, fair application scoring

Last updated: February 2026