How to Move Away from Blackbaud Grantmaking (Without Losing Your Data)

Leaving Blackbaud Grantmaking is not a single decision — it is a project. The good news is that you do not have to do it all at once, and the organisations that navigate it most successfully tend to follow the same pattern: run a complementary tool alongside Blackbaud first, prove value on the gaps that matter most, build internal confidence, and then plan the full cutover with a team that already trusts the new system.

The practical case for leaving Blackbaud usually builds up slowly. Costs are high and opaque. The interface feels dated. UK compliance checks — Charity Commission registration, Companies House verification, OFSI sanctions screening — are not built in and have to be done manually, which creates both admin burden and audit risk. AI capabilities, announced prominently by Blackbaud across its suite, remain limited in the grantmaking product specifically. And once you are embedded in the ecosystem, the interdependencies between grantmaking, Financial Edge NXT, and Raiser's Edge NXT make the prospect of change feel bigger than it probably is.

This guide works through the full process: understanding why organisations stall, the integration-first approach that makes migration manageable, what to look for in a replacement, how to build the internal business case, and what the actual data migration involves.

Why are UK funders looking to leave Blackbaud?

The reasons foundations start exploring alternatives tend to cluster around the same set of frustrations. They are worth naming honestly.

Cost and pricing opacity. Blackbaud does not publish pricing. You learn the cost through a sales conversation, which makes budgeting and internal justification harder than it needs to be. The UK Government Digital Marketplace lists the licence at £2,565.75 per licence per year, but that number excludes implementation consulting (typically a separate multi-month engagement), module fees, and the ongoing support costs that grow as the system becomes more embedded. Total cost of ownership is routinely higher than organisations anticipated at procurement.

US-centric compliance. Blackbaud's built-in compliance tools — Candid for charity status verification, CSI WatchDOG® for sanctions screening — are designed for US regulatory requirements. They do not check the Charity Commission register, Companies House, or the OFSI consolidated sanctions list. For UK funders, that means running those checks manually outside the system, or not running them at all. As grant compliance expectations tighten, the absence of built-in UK checks is an increasingly significant gap.

Vendor lock-in. Once grants data, financial data, and donor management are all running through Blackbaud products, the cost of leaving is high — and Blackbaud's contract structures have been designed accordingly. Customers report agreements with limited exit provisions. The data is technically exportable, but the process is not straightforward, and knowing that is part of why many organisations stay longer than they intend to.

A dated interface. User reviews consistently describe the Blackbaud Grantmaking interface as outdated. The multi-portal architecture — separate interfaces for administrators, applicants, and reviewers — adds navigational steps to tasks that should be simple. This is not a cosmetic complaint: it translates directly into hours of admin time per grant round.

AI features that are not yet in the grantmaking product. Blackbaud has made broad announcements about AI capabilities across its suite, but the grantmaking-specific AI features that are in production and available to use today remain limited. For funders where AI-assisted assessment and automated due diligence are genuine requirements, the reality does not yet match the marketing.

Why most organisations stall before they switch

The case for leaving is clear. So why do foundations stay?

The honest answer is that a full platform replacement feels enormous — and that instinct is not wrong. Moving your grant data, reconfiguring workflows, retraining staff, and running a live grant round on unfamiliar software simultaneously is a genuinely high-risk project. Organisations that treat it as a single big-bang change tend to stall at the planning stage, because there is no point at which the risk feels acceptable.

The fear compounds when the Blackbaud ecosystem runs deep. If Financial Edge NXT handles your finance reconciliation, changing your grant management system also means negotiating the data flows between two systems. That adds scope, cost, and anxiety — even if the underlying grant platform change is straightforward.

There is also the internal politics dimension. Getting sign-off for a new system requires demonstrating value upfront. That is hard to do when all the evidence you can point to is a vendor comparison document and a demo. Trustees and finance teams want to see that the new tool actually works for your programmes before you dismantle the old one.

This is the point where most migrations stall: not for technical reasons, but for organisational ones.

The integration-first approach: run alongside, then replace

The organisations that successfully move away from Blackbaud tend not to start with a migration. They start with an integration — running a complementary tool alongside Blackbaud to cover specific gaps, without touching existing data or disrupting existing workflows.

The logic is straightforward. Instead of asking leadership to approve a platform replacement (high risk, uncertain outcome), you ask them to approve a pilot on a new grant round (low risk, bounded scope). You run the new platform for one programme — ideally a new round that has no historic data in Blackbaud — while Blackbaud continues to hold everything else.

During that pilot phase, you are doing three things simultaneously:

1. Covering the gaps that prompted the exploration in the first place. If UK compliance checks were the issue, you are now running automated Charity Commission, Companies House, and OFSI checks. If AI-assisted assessment was the goal, you are using it on live applications.

2. Building internal evidence. You are accumulating real data on time saved, compliance gaps closed, and staff experience. That evidence is far more compelling in a business case than any vendor comparison.

3. Building team confidence. Staff who have used the new system on one grant round are not starting from scratch when the full migration comes. The tool is already familiar.

This approach also changes the conversation with leadership. You are no longer asking for a leap of faith. You are presenting data from a programme that already ran, and asking for permission to extend an approach that demonstrably worked.

What the new platform should do that Blackbaud cannot

When running the integration phase, it is worth being specific about what you are testing. The gaps that typically drive UK foundations away from Blackbaud cluster around four areas.

UK compliance checks built into the workflow. Automated verification against the Charity Commission register, Companies House, and OFSI — run as part of the application process, not as a separate manual exercise. The output should be a documented, timestamped record attached to each application, not a note in a spreadsheet.

AI-assisted application assessment. First-pass scoring of applications against your fund criteria, with configurable weighting, so that reviewers are spending their time on judgement rather than on reading every application from scratch. The AI output should include the reasoning behind each score, and reviewers should be able to override it with a logged explanation.

Reporting that does not require a workaround. Blackbaud users frequently cite custom reporting as a pain point. A modern platform should let you build fund-level dashboards, demographic breakdowns, and impact summaries without needing technical help or exporting to Excel.

A single interface. The separate portals for administration, applications, and review add friction that compounds over time. A unified interface where all roles operate in the same environment significantly reduces training burden and day-to-day navigational overhead.

A free tier or low-cost entry point. If you are running a pilot alongside Blackbaud, you are paying for two systems during the overlap. A platform that offers a free tier or low entry cost removes the financial barrier to starting the pilot.

How to build the internal case for full replacement

Once the integration phase has produced real evidence, the business case becomes much easier to make. The most effective business cases for platform replacement at foundations tend to quantify three things.

Admin time. How many staff-hours per grant round were spent on manual compliance checks, formatting reports, or navigating the multi-portal interface? If automated checks save one hour per application and you receive 200 applications per round, that is 200 hours — roughly five full working weeks — that can be redirected to programme work. At a senior programme officer's salary, the annual saving is material.

Compliance risk. How many applications in the last round were funded without a verified Charity Commission check? How many of those grantees were checked against OFSI? The answer is often uncomfortable. Documenting the compliance gap — and the reputational and governance risk it creates — is frequently the most persuasive part of the case.

Cost difference. The total cost of ownership comparison should include: Blackbaud licence fees, implementation and consulting costs (amortised over the contract period), the cost of manual compliance work (staff time), and any additional tools used to fill gaps. Set against the new platform's pricing, the saving is usually larger than expected.

The business case should be grounded in evidence from the pilot, not vendor claims. If the pilot ran on 50 applications and saved a documented 40 hours of compliance checking time, that is the number to use.

Migration timeline and planning

Once internal approval is secured, the migration itself follows a predictable sequence. The key insight is that parallel running — where both systems are active simultaneously for a defined period — substantially reduces risk.

The total elapsed time from starting the export to completing the cutover is typically 8–14 weeks for a mid-sized foundation. Larger portfolios with complex data structures may take longer; organisations with simpler data can move faster.

What happens to your Blackbaud data

This is the question that creates most anxiety, and it is worth addressing directly.

What exports cleanly. Grant records (application details, award amounts, payment history, status history), applicant organisation records (name, registration number, contact details, address), reviewer assignments, and basic financial data all export cleanly from Blackbaud as structured data. These are the records that will form the core of your migrated dataset.

What requires more care. Custom fields — particularly fields that were added to the Blackbaud configuration over time — may not have direct equivalents in the new system and need deliberate decisions about where they land. Workflow state information (where an application was in a multi-stage process) often needs to be simplified at migration: you are typically preserving the outcome (awarded, declined, withdrawn) rather than the in-process state.

What does not migrate. Portal-specific formatting, custom email templates, and Blackbaud-specific automation rules are system configuration rather than data, and they do not migrate. They need to be rebuilt in the new platform — but this is also an opportunity to rationalise processes that may have accumulated complexity over years.

Documents and attachments. Application documents (PDFs, Word files, financial accounts) typically need to be exported separately and re-associated with the relevant records in the new system. This is the most manual part of most migrations and benefits from being scoped carefully at the data audit stage.

Historic data you are not actively migrating. For grant records beyond your active portfolio — historical awards from previous years — the options are: migrate everything, migrate a defined lookback period (for example, the last five years), or keep Blackbaud in read-only mode for the archive period. Most organisations choose a hybrid: migrate recent active grants and retain a Blackbaud export for older records.

Post-migration considerations

Completing the migration is not the end of the project. The following areas need attention in the months after cutover.

Data retention. UK funders are generally expected to retain grant records for a minimum of seven years. Ensure your migrated data is covered by a clear retention policy in the new system, and that the Blackbaud archive (whether a maintained export or a read-only system access) is documented and accessible if needed for audit.

Financial reconciliation. If Blackbaud was integrated with Financial Edge NXT, the grant payment data that previously flowed between systems now needs to flow via a different route. This is the most technically complex part of a Blackbaud ecosystem exit, and it should be scoped with your finance team before the migration begins, not after.

Reporting continuity. Historic reporting — grant round summaries, board reports, annual statistics — was produced from Blackbaud data. Ensure the new system can reproduce equivalent outputs, or that you have a clear process for accessing the Blackbaud archive for historic reports.

Staff transition. Teams that have used Blackbaud for years often have strong procedural memory — knowing which portal to go to, which fields to check. The new system will feel unfamiliar initially, even if it is more intuitive. Budget for a brief support period after cutover, and designate an internal champion who can field questions.

Decommissioning timeline. Most organisations maintain Blackbaud access in read-only mode for 6–12 months after cutover, then allow the contract to lapse. Check the terms of your Blackbaud contract — particularly notice periods — before setting the cutover date.

Where Plinth fits in this process

Plinth is a UK-built grant management platform designed specifically for foundations, trusts, and philanthropic organisations operating in the UK. It is the natural destination for the integration-first migration path described in this guide.

The typical Blackbaud-to-Plinth migration follows this sequence: start with a new grant round on Plinth while Blackbaud continues to hold historic data, demonstrate value over one or two rounds, then migrate historic records once the team is confident. Plinth provides migration support throughout, including field mapping assistance and data validation.

The features that close the most common Blackbaud gaps are built in and working in production:

• Charity Commission, Companies House, and OFSI checks run automatically as part of the application workflow, with timestamped results saved to each record.
• AI-assisted application assessment scores applications against your fund criteria, with configurable weighting and full reasoning transparency for reviewers.
• Digital grant agreements with built-in signing workflows — no separate e-signature service needed.
• Monitoring and KPI tracking through the grant lifecycle, with automated reminders to grantees.
• AI-generated impact reports drafted from your grant outcome data, saving hours of manual compilation.
• A free tier available to get started without upfront commitment — which means the pilot phase carries no additional cost.

Plinth can run alongside Blackbaud during the transition period. Historic data remains accessible in Blackbaud while new programmes run on Plinth. When the team is ready, the migration is a structured data exercise rather than an emergency.

For a full side-by-side comparison, see Blackbaud vs Plinth.

Frequently asked questions

Can we really run Plinth and Blackbaud at the same time?

Yes. There is no technical barrier to running two grant management platforms during a transition period. The practical approach is to run new grant rounds on the new platform while Blackbaud holds historic data. Staff will need to know which system to use for which programmes, but this is a simple operational decision rather than a technical one. Most organisations maintain parallel access for 6–12 months.

Will we lose our historic grant data if we leave Blackbaud?

No. Blackbaud allows data export, and your grant records — application data, award amounts, payment history, grantee details — are exportable as structured files. The export process requires planning and some data cleaning, but historic data is recoverable. Many organisations choose to migrate recent years of data and retain older records in a Blackbaud archive export rather than migrating everything.

How long does a Blackbaud migration actually take?

For a mid-sized foundation with a few years of grant data, the typical elapsed time from data audit to cutover is 8–14 weeks. Organisations with larger or more complex data structures may take longer; those with simpler portfolios can move faster. Parallel running — typically 4–8 weeks — is the most important part of the timeline for building team confidence, and should not be compressed.

What about our Financial Edge NXT integration?

This is the most technically complex part of a Blackbaud ecosystem exit. If you rely on the Financial Edge NXT integration for payment reconciliation, you will need to agree a new data flow between your finance system and the new grant platform before cutover. This is manageable but requires scoping with your finance team early in the planning process. Some organisations choose to maintain Blackbaud for financial reconciliation while running grant management on a new platform, at least initially.

Is there a way to trial a new platform without committing?

Yes. Platforms with a free tier — Plinth includes one — allow you to run a real grant round without an upfront financial commitment. This is the lowest-risk way to evaluate a new system: configure it for a real programme, process real applications, and make a decision based on evidence from live use rather than a demo environment.

What should we look for in a migration support offer?

At minimum: field mapping assistance (someone who has done this before and can advise on where Blackbaud data structures map to the new system), data validation support (checking that record counts and relationships are correct after import), and access to someone who can answer questions during the parallel running period. Be cautious about vendors who treat migration as a paid professional services engagement with open-ended scope — a well-structured migration to a purpose-built platform should not require months of consulting.

How do we handle the compliance gap during transition?

During the parallel running period, new applications go through the new platform with its built-in UK compliance checks. Applications already in Blackbaud workflows continue through Blackbaud, with manual compliance checks as before. The transition period is typically short enough that this is manageable. The important thing is to ensure that from the first round on the new platform, compliance checks are being run and documented within the system — not continuing as a manual side process.

Recommended next pages

• Blackbaud Grantmaking Review — A full assessment of Blackbaud's features, pricing, UK-readiness, and limitations, to inform your evaluation.

• Grant Management Systems Compared — A side-by-side review of 16 grant management platforms to help you shortlist alternatives.

• How to Automate Due Diligence in Grantmaking — What automated UK compliance checks look like in practice, and how they change the due diligence workflow.

• AI for Funders: The Future of Grantmaking — How AI-assisted assessment, automated due diligence, and AI-generated impact reports work in a modern grantmaking platform.

• Plinth Grant Management Features — An overview of Plinth's capabilities for UK funders, including the free tier and migration support offer.

Last updated: February 2026