Introduction

Anyone who has worked in fundraising will have grim memories of long caffeine-fuelled nights, drowning in a sea of text, tables and graphics as another impossible deadline looms. The risks inherent in a last-minute scramble are self-evident; budgets that don’t add up; targets that can never be met; fragments of text from previous bids that appear where you least expect them. Much of this can be avoided by establishing strong internal systems and by ensuring that the basic building blocks of proposals are in place long before the clock starts ticking.

This is an ongoing process that involves creating generic material and updating this material on a regular basis. Responsibilities for related tasks should be properly assigned and efforts should be made to ensure that content is readily accessible to those who need it. Effective knowledge management can also play an important role in capturing key learnings from previous application processes and applying them to future bids. Nevertheless, copy-paste proposals are the bane of project evaluators, so it is essential to maintain a proper balance between generic content and bespoke material that fully responds to the objectives, priorities and themes of the given funding programme.

Preparing a company profile

“Selling” your organisation is an important part of any bid – although it should never be the main consideration.

Applicants should avoid presenting a long marketing blurb that extols the virtues of their work in very general terms.

Donors want reassurances that your company is the right one for the job, not simply an exemplary organisation that can turn its hand to any task.

It is also worth noting that, while donors are attracted by a strong brand, they may be less enthusiastic about working with an organisation whose brand may eventually eclipse their own.

The company profile should include a generic component presenting the basic information about your organisation as well as a bespoke element highlighting experience relevant to a bid or a partnership.

There should be a short section describing the company’s core mission and areas of work. The bespoke narrative – a capability statement – should provide insight into relevant past performance that focuses on the results and impact of projects rather than simply their objectives and activities.

The language of a company profile should be measured and concise. Avoid the kind of hyperbole normally associated with promotional materials (e.g. “best-in-market”, “unparalleled” and “world-beating”).

Where possible, assertions about a company’s skills and expertise should be backed up by concrete examples (e.g. “a leading provider of journalism training, as evidenced by more than 100 capacity-building programmes which have enhanced the skills of 1,000 media professionals in 16 countries”).

Preparing company policies

Increasingly, media development agencies are being asked to present their policies in areas such as DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion), Duty of Care, Safeguarding, IT Security and Risk Management.

Elements of these policies can also be used in the narrative of bids, demonstrating that your organisation has well-established systems and procedures which can be swiftly deployed at the start of a new project. There is a value in including short case studies to illustrate key areas of policy, explaining how the company has responded to similar challenges in the past.

Policy documents should follow a general format which includes the objectives of the policy, its core elements, oversight mechanisms and an allocation of responsibilities. If you are appending them to bids, it is worth including the date when the documents were last updated (and, ideally, ensuring that the date is relatively recent).

Developing past performance profiles

Although donors have different templates for past performance, it is worth developing a consistent structure that can be adapted for multiple purposes.

Past performance profiles are often drawn from the project proposal. This is a mistake. If anything, they should be distilled from the final (or interim) report. While it is important to give insight into the strategic goals and services provided, it is, perhaps, more important to demonstrate what was achieved.

Here is a good example:

“The project set out to increase acceptance of modern methods of family planning through an awareness-raising campaign enacted on TV, radio and print. According to a survey carried out in Month 24 of the programme, six out of ten people exposed to the campaign said that they had greater trust in the safety of key methods, a 20% increase on the baseline.”

Developing generic content for proposals

Inevitably, a significant proportion of any proposal consists of material which remains relatively consistent from one bid to another. It is, therefore, a good idea to have a body of pre-prepared material on issues that crop up in most application forms and that require detailed treatment. This should include a database of short biographies and CVs (while observing compliance with data protection regulations such as GDPR).

However, care should be taken to properly adapt this content to the requirements of the new project and/or to the specific contours of the country/region in which the project will be implemented.

In addition to a company profile and examples of previous track record, common elements might include:

If you have a reserve of generic content that can be rolled out for the purposes of most applications, it is good to review and refresh it from time to time. Standard procedures can quickly become obsolete, particularly against the backdrop of global phenomena such as the Covid-19 pandemic.

Building a pool of experts/consultants

When resourcing projects, most organisations rely primarily on tried-and-tested consultants from their own network. However, these experts alone may not combine all the skills and subject areas required for specific funding opportunities. Organisations are, therefore, well advised to build a pool of potential experts in multiple fields, thereby avoiding a last-minute search for appropriate talent during the bidding process itself.

Developing a network of partners

The bidding process itself rarely provides sufficient time to conduct due diligence and establish a proper working relationship. Organisations should, therefore, constantly be on the lookout for appropriate partners, particularly those specialising in complementary fields and/or with experience in new geographies. In normal times, these relationships are often established in the sidelines of international events or festivals, then cemented through direct experience of collaboration. In the world of online meetings and conference calls, they are built in the messaging panel of Skype, Zoom and Teams.

Internal systems for fundraising

Most organisations lack the resources to establish an in-house team dedicated to fund-raising and, consequently, the tasks of identifying new opportunities and writing proposals fall to individuals who combine them with their substantive role. Buying in external fundraising services can be expensive and has the disadvantage of involving consultants who may not be familiar with the organisation’s philosophy, resources and competitive advantages.

In addition, at least one employee should be tasked with developing proposal content and leading on bid-writing processes.

Introduction

Over the past decade, the media development landscape has become increasingly crowded. Not only has there been an uptick in the number of specialised agencies but there has been a tendency for organisations with a wider development focus to extend their portfolio to include media and communications.

Consequently, it is important to ensure that your organisation stands out from the crowd by having a recognisable identity, mission and scope of work.

If donors see yours as the go-to organisation for, say, media literacy, legal reform or production training in a certain country or region, then this will give you a strong competitive advantage.

Identifying niches

First and foremost, you will need to pursue grants which can build up your track record in this field but you will also need to develop the networks, partnerships and expertise necessary to burnish your credentials and establish your footprint.

Proactively securing speaking opportunities in conferences and events linked to the target theme/sector can also help build a reputation for thought leadership.

Thematic niches

Nevertheless, it is worth bearing in mind that donors are fickle and niche areas can enjoy widespread support for a time, then mysteriously vanish from their list of priorities. A few years ago, digital security training and constructive journalism were causes célèbres; now media literacy and media viability are on the ascendant.

It is, therefore, risky to be seen as a one-trick pony. There is much to be gained from analysing the trends and embracing new doctrines – as long as they don’t mark too radical a departure from your sphere of interest and your skillset.

Geographic outreach

The same principle applies to geographical outreach.

Even if your organisation has a primarily national focus, it may be worth exploring the possibilities for sharing your skills and experience on a regional level or, indeed, gaining a reputation for working outside the capital city and supporting the growth of provincial media markets.

For international organisations, there are clear advantages in gaining a solid track record in a country or sub-region which is traditionally overlooked or where others fear to tread. However, maintaining a presence or activity in those countries over an extended period of time may be more challenging.

Unique selling points

Defining and revising your company's unique selling points (USPs) is a useful exercise.

This can be done in the context of specific bids (i.e. defining so-called “win themes”) or more generally against the backdrop of perceived competition.

Why USPs are important

A focus on “what makes us different/innovative” is an essential part of successful fundraising, since it helps to:

1. Identify relevant or strategically important opportunities

2. Maintain institutional coherence

Key areas to consider when developing USPs:

• Your brand: how recognisable is it?

• Your specialist skills: where are they most in demand?

• Your resources: are they fit for purpose?

• Your target geographies: are they oversubscribed?

• Your commitment to fostering innovation: is your organisation adapting to changes in technology or best practice?

• Your partnerships: are you aligned with organisations that complement your offering?

• Your internal systems: can you hit the ground running and adapt to changing circumstances?

Proprietary tools and methodologies

Not only do donors want to be seen to embrace innovation but potential partners will also be attracted by the opportunity to include cutting-edge approaches in their bids.

While, of course, agencies should avoid developing technology for technology’s sake, the media development industry as a whole often suffers from a reputation for being “old school” and for minimising risk by deploying well-worn approaches that have worked in the past or proven successful in a different geographic area.

Innovation

But solutions should also be organic, adapting to reflect common usage patterns and evolving in line with feedback received.

Most tools or learning materials are developed in the framework of grant-funded projects but it is worth stepping back from the project-based cycle and committing internal resources to develop a coherent suite of products and methodologies that can shape and drive your organisational growth.

Examples

Examples of areas in which you might consider developing proprietary tools and methodologies might include:

• Training manuals in key subject areas that enjoy perennial demand

• Training toolkits that establish and illustrate best practice models

• Interactive learning systems (including mobile apps) that can extend your outreach and improve operational flexibility

• Knowledge management platforms that capture lessons learned

• Low-cost programme formats that have a proven track record in promoting socially responsible messaging

• Research methodologies that embrace key considerations such as equity and safeguarding

Building a portfolio

Yet, as in most spheres, becoming a recognised player in your chosen field is a chicken-and-egg situation: you need to have a track record to win grants but you need grants to build a track record.

Most organisations, therefore, start out by entering into partnerships with larger agencies and/or delivering a small component of a larger project. This can also be a way to break into new areas and extend your geographical footprint.

Furthermore, there are smaller sub-granting programmes where there is less insistence on previous experience and other pieces of work – such as monitoring and evaluation, external assessment and training – which are sub-contracted or outsourced on the basis of a simple tender procedure.

These procedures are often based on the calibre of individual experts and the proposed pricing rather than track record alone.

Getting your first opportunity

Not all donors are willing to give unknown organisations a first chance.

Like first-time novelists, development agencies often suffer a slew of rejections before winning their first grant. Nevertheless, it is worth persisting since even failed applications may serve to put you on an individual donor’s map and the experience accrued through the application process is invaluable.

Risks of poor forward planning

Responding to opportunities at the last moment carries numerous risks:

Potential sources of information

Almost all donors publish upcoming opportunities on their corporate websites.

The only exceptions are:

Organisations that invite would-be grantees to submit applications at any time of the year usually publish the relevant forms and guidelines on their website but it is still worth engaging with these donors before submitting a proposal. Some may be willing to give initial feedback on the appropriateness of your concept before you invest the time and effort into developing a full proposal.

There is considerable value in developing these relationships over time, forging links with key players and presenting your credentials for potential partnerships.

Systems for tracking opportunities

This process should be systematised as far as possible in order to ensure that relevant opportunities do not pass you by.

The easiest solution is to subscribe to automated updates such as the EU’s TED system or the US Government’s Grant.gov website.

There are also commercial providers such as Development Aid which will provide filtered opportunities for an annual fee.

However, no single system is a failsafe, so a combination of platforms and approaches is probably the best solution.

The most effective approach is to combine grass-roots methods with regular monitoring of websites where these opportunities are published.

For national organisations, the bulk of local opportunities will come your way by word of mouth and engagement with other development actors.

For international organisations, the focus will be on checking web portals and encouraging donors to proactively share opportunities. In both cases, sustained and consistent intelligence-gathering efforts are the secret to success.

Decision-making: to apply or not to apply

There is a strong temptation to cast the net as widely as possible and apply for any opportunity which seems more or less appropriate. There is a tendency also to be beguiled by the amount of money on offer and to downplay the risks associated with co-funding or over-expansion. It is, therefore, helpful to consider the following issues when making your decision:

Are you eligible?

Donors will rarely give a judgement about an individual case but they should provide greater clarity if you phrase your question correctly.

Can you demonstrate a sufficient track record?

This is not just about being able to prove you have good experience in the target sector or country. It is about demonstrating that you have the capacity to manage a grant of a similar size.

You need to think twice if you are applying for a grant of €1 million but the largest budget you have ever managed totalled €100,000. This is when you may want to consider a partnership with an organisation that has the required track record.

Are the odds in your favour?

This is a difficult judgement to make but it should be possible to get some insight into the odds of winning.

A large EU programme, for example, might attract more than 100 applications at the concept note stage; shortlist 15 and offer grants to five. This information is often published and should be factored into decision-making processes.

A donor’s reputation for risk-taking should also be taken into consideration – some prefer to stick with incumbents while others will give a chance to newcomers who have compelling, fresh ideas.

In the final analysis, you need to balance the amount of work required against the chances of success. However attractive the potential reward, it is simply not worth committing the necessary resources unless you are confident that you have competitive advantages which give you the edge over other applicants.

Can you make the project cost-effective?

This call is likely to be based on experience rather than any scientific formula but issues worth considering include:

• Is there sufficient room for including a management overhead that can contribute to your running costs?

• Is the project an extension of your normal activities or will it require buying in extensive resources from the outside and introducing a new strand of work?

• Can you absorb the potential workload in the context of your other activities?

• Is there a significant co-funding requirement? How sure are you of being able to cover it? Note that, if you cannot cover the co-funding, your project will not be financially sustainable.

• Will the project benefit you institutionally?

Other considerations

Revenue should not be the only consideration.

Security concerns should be paramount and you should weigh up whether or not the donor's requirements (including visibility-related) may expose your organisation to unacceptable risks. If you feel this is the case, then you should raise them with the donor at the earliest opportunity and base your decision on the response.

You should also assess whether the project has the potential to raise your profile and build your reputation. You may decide, for example, that a programme is not necessarily cost-effective but will enable you to extend your footprint into a new area of activity or a new geographical region. Sometimes the institutional benefits may outweigh other business-related criteria.

Do you have the people to deliver the project?

This is one of the reasons why some donors put so much emphasis on CVs and resourcing plans.

It can be difficult to find the right people who are available at the right time – good managers and consultants are in high demand and they may be unwilling or unable to drop everything in order to work on your project.

It is, therefore, important to have preliminary agreements in place with qualified individuals before making applications. You should also ensure that any implementing partners have the same.

Requesting clarifications

This is an important element of the application process and one that may affect your decision whether or not to proceed.

All answers are usually sent to applicants or published online, however, they often leave much to be desired.

There are various guidelines to observe when requesting clarifications that will help you to get the answers you are looking for.

They can be summarised as follows:

This module looks at the different processes that exist and the paperwork you will be asked to complete.

Introduction

Clearly, each donor has its own procedures, many of which have evolved over time and continue to evolve, so there is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all proposal. However, there are many commonalities that allow applicants to successfully adapt project ideas for multiple bids.

The headings below cover the different processes which are relevant to the media development community. There are, of course, others that are not addressed here but the intention is to raise awareness of the most commonly used approaches.

Common processes

Responding to open calls with no submission deadlines

Several donors – principally foundations – have open application processes whereby organisations can apply for funding at any time using standard templates and application procedures. A few have two or three deadlines during the course of the year.

This is probably the most convenient approach, allowing applicants to spend more time preparing their bids and to submit an application only when all the elements are in place.

However, these programmes are also highly competitive and receive a very significant number of applications. It is difficult not to draw the conclusion that they must, at some point during the year, overreach themselves (i.e. run out of available funds).

Direct approaches from donors

They may also ask an organisation running an ongoing programme to apply for follow-up funding if it is considered that the project is going particularly well and deserves to be continued.

That said, most donors are eager to maintain a reputation for equity and transparency, so direct approaches are exceptional. A retendering process whereby the incumbent fights off challenges from other contenders are more common.

Pitches to donors without applying to a specific programme

Unless donors specifically state that they do not accept unsolicited proposals or an open procedure has been launched in a related field, it is possible to share ideas and concept notes on an ad hoc basis, particularly if you have a good working relationship with desk officers and you believe that your proposal is timely (e.g. linked to an event or a crisis).

On the vast majority of occasions, the donor will refer you to an upcoming programme or will reply that they have no funds available at the current time. If they respond at all. Direct approaches are often used for securing co-funding but it is worth recognising that most donor programmes lack flexibility and need to bend their own rules in order to allocate direct grants. They are also wary of setting dangerous precedents.

Calls for proposals

Varying levels of feedback are given to unsuccessful bids ranging from a simple rejection letter to formal opportunities to discuss the shortcomings of the proposal during a phone call with the grant officer.

Competitive tenders

Tenderers are encouraged to form consortia in order to meet these criteria and are invited to submit an expression of interest setting out their technical and financial credentials as well as examples of recent past performance.

Consortia

Technical offers

Generally speaking (and Covid-19 aside), the results of these processes are announced fairly rapidly and the winning consortium starts work as soon as the contract is signed.

Competitive tenders are tough, requiring a very intense period of work and drawing down considerable resources. Leading agencies will commit teams of 6-8 people to large tenders as well as drawing in expertise from the outside. There is a high degree of sensitivity about conflicts of interest and insider dealing, meaning that challenges are relatively common and EU agencies take them very seriously. If a contention is raised during the tendering process, then the evaluation may be put on hold until the issue is resolved.

Framework contracts

Procedures are supposed to be simplified and the timeframe given to organisations to prepare their bids is often very tight.

While the size of the grants attached to framework contracts can be substantial, this is not an approach that resonates well with many implementing agencies who argue that the procedures involved are opaque and skewed in favour of organisations that have the resources and track record to apply.

Sub-granting

Under this arrangement, the contractor allocates and administers a finite number of small grants according to the accountability rules established by the donor.

Effectively, the implementing organisations take on the role of donors in their own right.

Advantages of sub-grants

Drawbacks of sub-grants

Risks of sub-grants

Efforts have been made to lobby the donor community to facilitate sub-granting processes by introducing a lighter workload for all concerned and by placing greater focus on mentoring the work of grantees and ensuring that the financing brings added value.

To date, these efforts have not resulted in any major concessions.

Planning and designing a project

Arguably, the best projects are those which are based on a pre-existing idea that is adapted for the purposes of the bid.

These give applicants the ability to demonstrate that the core approach is tried and tested while also having sufficient flexibility to incorporate innovation or to embrace specific themes.

Projects which are developed from scratch in order to “tick the boxes” tend to feel artificial and staged.

That said, very general guidelines often leave applicants guessing what the donor is actually looking for and are often subject to misinterpretation.

Bid management

Large agencies often appoint a dedicated bid manager who will supervise the entire process but this, unfortunately, is a luxury that few can afford.

Nevertheless, there are standard management procedures that are worth bearing in mind, even if you are assigning multiple roles to the individuals concerned.

They can be summarized as follows:

To GFMD members, associates and partners

• Does this Guide meet your needs?

• What have we missed?

• Where do we need to provide more details and insights?

But most importantly...

What expertise and experiences could you contribute?

To donors

This Guide is not just for those applying for media development and journalism support funding. It is for donors too.

• Have we communicated what you are looking for in a funding application clearly?

• Did we get anything wrong? If so, how can we correct it?

• What have we missed?

• Didn't find your organisation over the list of funders' profiles? Or do you have corrections or additions to the profile?

We want to hear from you! See contact information below.

Please get in touch

Executive order: Revaluation and realigning United States Foreign Aid

90-day pause in United States foreign development assistance for assessment of programmatic efficiencies and consistency with United States foreign policy.” During this time, “foreign development assistance programs shall immediately pause new obligations and disbursements of development assistance funds to foreign countries and implementing non-governmental organizations, international organizations, and contractors pending reviews of such programs for programmatic efficiency and consistency with United States foreign policy, to be conducted within 90 days of this order.

This suspension affects several foreign aid programs, including those under USAID and DRL. The full scope and duration of the suspension remain uncertain, with an initial 90-day review period in place. It is not yet clear if this will be extended or if some grants may be terminated or amended. During this period, many NGOs are experiencing disruption, particularly with regards to ongoing programs, funding disbursements, and staff-related issues. NGOs receiving US funds should prepare for the possibility that the suspension could last longer than anticipated.

Judge orders US to restore funds for foreign aid programs

Legal actions

Ongoing Lawsuits

National Endowment for Democracy Files Lawsuit to Access Funds

NED Welcomes State Department’s Initial Steps Towards Restoring Funding

US Supreme Court upholds order that Trump's administration cannot withhold payments to foreign aid groups

According to Reuters:

Attorney Robert Nichols Leads Lawsuit to Challenge Foreign Aid Freeze

Government workers' unions sue Trump administration over USAID dismantling

The American Federation of Government Employees and the American Foreign Service Association have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration to stop the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). The lawsuit challenges the halting of foreign aid, project shutdowns, and mass layoffs, arguing that these actions are unconstitutional and have caused a global humanitarian crisis by disrupting efforts to combat disease and hunger. It seeks a court order to restore USAID’s funding, reopen its offices, and prevent further steps towards its dissolution, asserting that only Congress has the authority to dismantle the agency.

Litigation tracker

Funding

Foreign Aid Bridge Fund

Priorities for Media and Media Support: The Foreign Aid Bridge Fund primarily focuses on sectors such as health, agriculture, sanitation, climate adaptation, livelihoods, education, and humanitarian response. It does not explicitly prioritise media or media support. However, organisations operating within these fields that have a significant media or communication component may be considered for funding, especially if their media activities are integral to delivering essential services and information to communities.

Geographical Priorities: Global. The fund addresses urgent needs across various regions impacted by the U.S. foreign aid freeze.

Type of Funding Available: The Foreign Aid Bridge Fund offers critical, short-term grant-based financing designed to ensure immediate impact and program continuity. This rapid-response mechanism provides flexible funding to high-impact organisations with sustainable business models, enabling them to maintain or resume essential operations disrupted by the aid freeze.

Network for Empowered Aid Response (NEAR) Change Fund

Priorities for Media and Media Support: While NEAR's primary focus is on promoting equitable and dignified partnerships within the aid system, it does not explicitly prioritise media or media support. However, media organisations that function as local or national CSOs and align with NEAR's mission and values may be eligible for membership and support. NEAR's emphasis on local participation and capacity building can indirectly benefit media entities committed to community engagement and development.

Geographical Priorities: NEAR operates globally, with a significant presence in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America. The network comprises nearly 300 local organisations deeply rooted in their communities, enabling them to respond swiftly and effectively to crises.

Resources on how to deal with the funding stop

Navigating the USG funding pause - guidance document

Organizing Suspension and Termination Costs under USAID/DOS grants and cooperative agreements

Templates for handling Suspension of Work (SWO) scenarios effectively

Legal briefings from law firm Nichols Liu

Webinar 3: What to Do Next in Response to the Foreign Aid Freeze

Webinar 4: Foreign Assistance – Moving from Outrage to Action

You can find the slides from the webinar below.

Articles and briefings on the implications of funding stop

DevEx: USAID to cut 1,600 staff, place nearly all direct hires on leave

The news comes less than 48 hours after a federal judge allowed the Trump administration to continue removing USAID staff — beginning a reduction in workforce that those across the agency had been bracing for.

GIJN: The USAID Crisis and Funding the Future of Independent Media

Independent nonprofit media around the globe suddenly find themselves at the center of a perfect storm of at least four new existential threats.

Columbia Journalism Review: USAID and the Media in a ‘Time of Monsters’

Reporters Without Borders: USA: Trump’s foreign aid freeze throws journalism around the world into chaos

Accountability Lab rapid analysis initial impact of Stop Work Orders

DevEx: What Trump’s foreign aid freeze means for USAID and its partners

US Aid Frozen: A Real Humanitarian Crisis And Lives Will Be Lost

Navigating Stop Work Orders in the U.S. Aid Freeze

Calls for action

EFJ calls for mobilisation of European donors

EFJ calls on all potential European donors to take action to compensate for the US withdrawal, in particular to ensure the survival of Ukrainian media, the network of Belarusian journalists in exile and media programmes in Kosovo.

Thoughts from the community

A US retreat from international media assistance will set back the global movement for media freedom by years. The gap left behind will not be easy to fill. The movement, however, can be sustained by fortifying its roots. In time, the movement could emerge stronger.

NUJU concerned about suspension of US Aid Activity

U.S. aid suspension is a COVID-19 for Civil Society

WELCOME

If your organisation is planning to apply for media development or journalism support funding, the GFMD MediaDev Fundraising Guide is for you.

We hope that the Guide will provide insight into a variety of application models, take you through the project design process, and help you submit better - and ultimately more successful - funding proposals.

Who is the MediaDev Fundraising Guide for?

This Guide is for anyone applying for media development and journalism support funding.

It aims to be comprehensive, and support individuals and organisations making their first applications as well as provide a refresher for more experienced fundraisers.

Obviously, some sections will be more relevant than others depending on the size and nature of your organisation. We are in the process of adding examples and case studies to illustrate how to adapt the guidance depending on your circumstances.

How to use the MediaDev Fundraising Guide

The Guide is designed to be read sequentially with each module building on the previous modules.

To use the Guide in this way, simply move to the next section by clicking on the button at the bottom right-hand corner of every page.

If you are in a rush or want to return to the page you were reading on your last visit, use the left-hand navigation section to skip to specific topics.

You can also find your way around by using

• The hyperlinks in the text

• The "CONTENTS" navigation on the right-hand panel of each page

• The search function, in the top right of the header

If you do not have a stable connection you can also download sections or the whole guide as a PDF.

However, please be aware that you will need to come back and download it again periodically so that you do not miss any updates to the guide.

How to stay up to date

The Guide is updated on a regular basis.

There are two ways to make sure you don't miss any updates:

THE MODULES

GFMD MediaDev Fundraising Guide has eleven modules focusing on different aspects of how to apply for funding to support media development and journalism programmes.

The eleven modules are free to access.

Subsections

Feedback & new sections

ANNEX

Fundraising lexicon

The lexicon provides definitions, context, and examples about how particular programmatic, fundraising, and media development terms are understood by donors and how they should be used and responded to in funding applications and project design.

Webinars

MAPPING MEDIADEV FUNDING

Where to find MediaDev funding?

The Guide provides an overview of the organisations that fund media development and journalism support initiatives, programmes and projects.

Funding opportunities

Browse the latest funding opportunities for media development and journalism on the GFMD website.

Emergency funding

GET INVOLVED

The GFMD MediaDev Fundraising Guide is a collaborative effort.

Acknowledgements & appreciation

The Secretariat of the Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD) is especially grateful to:

• Michael Randall, who developed the content for the first version of the Guide.

• The expertise and advice of our members and supporters who reviewed the Guide and made many valuable suggestions ahead of publication in June 2021. Special thanks go to:

  • Alex Pearce (BBC Media Action)

  • Bridget Gallagher (Gallagher Group)

  • Camilla Palazzini (openDemocracy)

  • Laurence Burckel (CFI)

  • Mariana Santos (Chicas Poderosas)

  • Raquel Bennet (Chicas Poderosas)

  • Shannon Meredith (Chicas Poderosas)

• For content production and editing:

  • Manuel Lemos (Intern GFMD)

  • Camille Seyt (Intern GFMD)

Who funds the GFMD MediaDev Fundraising Guide?

Project funding to get the GFMD MediaDev Fundraising Guide off the ground was provided by the Open Society Foundations.

The Guide was also produced thanks to GFMD's core funding which comes from:

The steps outlined below present a proposed guide for designing a project and submitting a funding application.

Your ability to follow these steps will depend on the resources at your disposal and on your own organisational culture.

1. Assess the feasibility of the bid

2. Form a creative team

3. Approach potential partners

4. Create a delivery timeline

5. Organise a meeting with your partners

7. Produce a skeleton of the narrative

8. Seek final agreement on partner contributions

9. Assign tasks

10. Establish a platform for sharing material

11. Organise a first budget review

12. Organise regular review meetings

13. Carry out an administrative check

14. Organise a first review of the narrative

15. Organise a second review of the budget

16. Organise a second review of the narrative

17. Final review of supporting documentation

18. Final proof-read

19. Final submission

20. Filing

Effective, balanced partnerships are an essential ingredient for success. However, it is very important to ensure a proper rationale for your choice of partner as well as to ensure that the resulting partnership is manageable and conducive to better results.

Reasons why donors encourage a partnership approach

Types of partner

In the media development field, organisations leading bids tend to look for the following types of partner:

Research partners

Organisations which can take responsibility for context analysis, baseline research, monitoring and evaluation etc.

Strategic partners

Partners who compensate for any perceived weaknesses in the experience or track record of the lead (e.g. experience in the target country or aspects of the project design). These might include technology, humanitarian or health partners for development communications programmes.

Local partners

Local organisations which can ensure the project benefits from local knowledge, networks and personnel. Local partners may also be able to provide a base of operations.

Media partners

Media outlets, local or international, who can provide broadcast or publishing platforms for any content produced through the project.

Types of relationship

It is, therefore, essential that this partner’s leadership role is clearly articulated and that the organisation concerned has the internal resources and systems to deliver.

Co-applicants, sub-grantees & co-beneficiaries

Sub-contractors

Several donors allow for sub-contractors or suppliers who are not named in the bid but who are selected according to an agreed procurement process during the implementation phase.

The complexity of the procurement process will generally depend on the value of the contract but, in all cases, proper due diligence should be carried out.

The proportion of the budget which can be used for sub-contracting is often limited because the donor assumes that the actual contractor should be capable of delivering the vast majority of the required activities.

Media partners

Media partners may not fall into any of the above categories.

They may be broadcasters or publishers who have agreed in principle to carry content produced by the project because this content is perceived to have value in terms of attracting new audiences or enhancing editorial credibility.

These partners are, therefore, likely to agree to carry the content free of charge.

Donors may want to see evidence that such organisations are on board during the bidding stage through letters of support or other forms of commitment.

Ground rules

The prerequisites for a successful partnership can be summarised as follows:

Complementary skills and experience

Shared values and a common vision

Partners, broadly speaking, should have the same institutional goals and development priorities.

Similar organisational culture and effective decision-making structures are also the foundation stones for a good working relationship.

A fair division of the available budget

It is not always possible to agree on definite budgetary allocations from the outset since some activity strands may be determined by the findings of baseline research.

There should, nevertheless, be clarity about the workstreams “owned” by each partner and the project management resources required to deliver related activities.

Collective and inclusive decision-making

This approach should be carried through into project implementation.

Autonomy

Conversely, partners need to be given the space to develop and deliver their own work packages or activity strands.

Mutual support

Training and instruction should be offered, where necessary, as well as assistance with internal procedures in order to ensure complementarity across the consortium.

Effective knowledge management

All partners benefit from mechanisms aimed at sharing ideas, resources and materials across the project lifecycle.

Managing information is also crucial for project continuity (e.g. for effective briefings of consultants and proper handovers between key staff).

Collaboration on project design

It is vital that all opinions are considered and that a foundation is established for proper consultation and feedback.

Ultimately this will ensure that each partner feels a strong sense of ownership for its allocated activities.

Clearly, this process is easier when partners already have experience of working together but effective collaboration with new partners can be assured by:

Negotiation

The ground rule for negotiation should be to ensure that all dealings are fair and transparent while respecting the need for some confidentiality around issues such as salaries and operational running costs.

Dos and don’ts of partner negotiations

Introduction

Large agencies invest significant time and effort into attempting to influence the donor community and to set the agenda for donor funding.

What makes this particularly challenging is that donor programmes are usually long-term and fairly inflexible.

Being able to have an impact on the decision-making process is sometimes a question of being at the right place at the right time.

Increasingly, however, donors are consulting the development community about current needs and priorities and some commit considerable resources to conducting regular needs assessments and mapping exercises.

On paper, donors claim to be open and transparent. In practice, many are reluctant to engage too closely with hopeful grantees and prefer to keep them at arm’s length.

Often the challenge is reaching anyone within a donor agency who has real decision-making powers. Desk officers rarely make strategic decisions and their job is to implement procedures established by senior stakeholders at headquarters.

Types of donor

Not all donors fit neatly into categories but in broad terms, the following types of donors are relevant to the media development sector:

Government agencies

These donors are often linked to (or part of) the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the given country.

Their job is to fund programmes that reflect or complement the national foreign policy and this funding is either channelled through diplomatic missions or disbursed through regional programmes.

There was a time when government agencies gave the bulk of their funding to organisations of the same nationality but this is no longer the case. However, it is true to say that they are often more accessible for organisations from the same country due to existing networks and physical or professional proximities.

The government agencies most active in the field of media development are:

The two key US agencies which support media development are worthy of special mention:

There has long been a perception that the lion’s share of the larger grants go to a handful of US agencies but there are signs that this situation is changing.

Most applications are made through the US government portal and applications tend to be complex and time-consuming.

For media development agencies, the most relevant State Department programmes are those channelled through:

• The Bureau of Democracy Human Rights and Labor (DRL)

• The Global Engagement Center (GEC)

The GEC is a recent addition to the donor firmament and has launched a series of ambitious programmes with a strong focus on tackling disinformation and state-sponsored propaganda.

Generally speaking, the volume of work attached to writing DRL and GEC applications is relatively small.

Foundations

It is fair to say that their priorities and spheres of interest are more consistent than those of state-funded bodies since they do not answer to political paymasters.

Some play a vital role in supporting local organisations over a period of many years and enjoy high levels of credibility due to their local knowledge and expertise.

UN agencies

For media projects, the most common ports of call are:

Many disburse grants through local missions, focusing on areas such as training, advocacy and programme development.

The funding ceilings are generally modest and the administrative burden can be disproportionately high.

Other international bodies

European Commission

In its Multiannual Financial Framework (2021-2027), the European Commission has proposed the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument (NDICI – also known as ‘Global Europe’) which aims to combine funding for different fields of EU external action in one single instrument. With a budget of just under €80 billion, it is likely to have four components:

• Geographical: with a focus on promoting the rule of law, human rights, democracy, good governance, peace, security and sustainable development in the European Neighbourhood, Asia and the Pacific, the Americas and the Caribbean and Sub-Saharan Africa.

• Thematic: focusing on actions that are linked to specific themes from the Sustainable Development Goals (promotion of human rights, civil society, stability and peace as well as health, education or sustainable and inclusive growth).

• Rapid response: aimed at the prevention of conflicts and (re)building peace efforts. This will support the financing of individual measures or one-off action plans.

• Flexibility cushion for responses to emerging crisis situations: aid in case of armed conflicts or natural disasters.

The European Commission is currently working on translating this agreement into an EU regulation. It is expected that the European Parliament will vote on the final legal text in the summer of 2021.

Applications are made using prescribed templates and, for the most part, submissions can be made online.

Technology companies

Some do not accept unsolicited offers and future grantees need to be recommended first.

Other donors of note

There are a number of donors who do not fall into any of the above categories but who are long-standing supporters of media development work.

They include:

All have a reputation for being approachable, flexible and keeping the administrative burden to a minimum.

Mapping donors

Some donors are better than others at presenting the priorities of their programmes and the procedures for accessing funding.

In addition to the desk research, it is worth talking to other organisations working in the same field to get the full story behind the corporate blurb – and, while competitors may be wary of sharing jealously guarded information, they are usually happy to recount individual experiences.

A donor mapping exercise should focus on:

Programmatic priorities

Consider what kind of themes the donor is interested in and its wider philosophy. These can be very broad and are not always well articulated.

Very broad priorities are, perhaps, the most daunting since it can be hard to link them to specific areas of work.

Geographical priorities

Funding ceilings

These should be taken seriously.

Where the ceiling is specified, it must be respected. Where broad parameters are given, you should have a look at previous grants to get a sense of the average amount awarded.

You do not necessarily damage your chances of success by aiming for the top of the funding bracket – most of the large donors would rather fund two or three large grants than ten small ones – but funding agencies are also keen to spread the available funds between several agencies where possible, thereby preserving their reputation for equitable treatment.

Contact details and URLs

Log personal contact details where they exist but be aware that most large agencies have a regular turnover of staff, so these details may need to be updated.

Upcoming opportunities

Note when the next formal opportunity is scheduled to be launched and create an alert system, ensuring that you receive a reminder well in advance of the proposed date.

Comments and conclusions

It is worth providing an assessment of the chances of success with any particular donor and the relative complexities of applying for funding.

For national agencies, it may also be helpful to note which other organisations in your locality have already received funding from this source.

Approaching donors

Pitching ideas

On rare occasions, you may get the chance to pitch ideas to donors.

It is true to say that most donors, like publishers, are on the lookout for the Next Big Thing and want to be across new ideas and innovations.

These can be dropped into conversations and can lead to direct approaches.

It is a good idea to have an “elevator pitch” – an idea that can be summed up in a few sentences and is directly linked to the donor’s priorities.

Cold calling

Contacting donors out of the blue and sharing an idea that seems to be relevant to their interests and priorities can work – although it depends very much on the donor.

The major institutional donors are likely to simply refer you to their websites and funding guidelines – if you are able to get through the right person at all. Writing to generic "info@donor.org" emails on their websites is usually a fruitless exercise.

Cold calling can work if you have a very strong idea and are absolutely sure that the donor in question (a) has a track record in supporting work in this theme/sector and (b) has some flexibility to award funding on an ad hoc basis.

It is probably fair to say that desk officers live in fear of cold calls and certainly do not encourage them. But this does not mean that the approach should not be tried.

Engaging successfully with donors

Donor engagement requires resources, experience and strong diplomatic skills.

Introductory meetings are undoubtedly useful for bringing the work of your organisation to a donor’s attention and exploring potential funding opportunities.

It is not a good idea to be too pushy or persistent but it is certainly advisable to build relationships over time.

This process can be facilitated by the following elements:

Strong presentation

Have a strong presentation that includes illustrations of your work (case studies). After a meeting, make sure that you leave a copy behind.

Common interests

Find areas of common interest and common reference points. Conversations should be exploratory rather than a hard sell. You need to be looking for areas of overlap between the funder’s agenda and your own.

Thematic focus

Avoid wasting donors’ time by pitching ideas that do not reflect their programmatic priorities or core areas of interest. You will not convince them to strike out in a new direction by sheer force of personality.

Follow up

Follow up on ideas shared at meetings by sending over concept notes, presentations, research findings or examples of previous work.

Connections

Help donors to make connections with end beneficiaries. Desk officers are eager to garner intelligence from the ground and hear about successful approaches from the horse’s mouth. Organising meetings with beneficiaries or site visits to projects can help to inform and shape their internal strategies and development processes.

Staff and roles

The individuals who work for donor organisations are in a privileged position and field approaches from prospective applicants on a regular basis.

There is considerable value in building a relationship with these individuals that positions your organisation as a unique provider of services or expertise. You can bolster this reputation by sharing the results of your research or making introductions that are of mutual benefit.

The focus should be on demonstrating that you have the contacts, resources and vision to bring ideas to fruition and that you can be relied on to do a good job.

Note that, within donor organisations and foreign embassies, responsibility for media development and democratic accountability may lie with very different departments/sections. For example:

• In EU Delegations, this area can come under the remit of the Political Section or, in some cases, of press and information officers.

• Some French embassies have a media attache but responsibility may also lie with a cultural officer.

• In British embassies, the portfolio can sit with Political Secretaries or with communications officers.

• In US embassies, this can be a role for staff working in Public Diplomacy.

International organisations

For international organisations, the parameters are very different and the focus is primarily on maintaining a privileged relationship with national donors who provide these organisations with the bulk of their support.

Lobbying in the European Commission is a tougher proposition since direct responsibilities for grant programmes are unclear and the evaluation committees are heavily bound by procedure and protocol, which are there to ensure that their decisions are impartial.

Nevertheless, organisations can benefit from regular attendance at EU-funded conferences and from carving out a reputation as thought-leaders in their chosen fields.

Call for proposals

This is probably the most common method for allocating funding for media projects. Donors launch a formal call that is based on key strategic goals and priorities.

Open calls

Calls for proposals are often termed as “open calls”, meaning that they are effectively open for all eligible organisations to apply.

They are distinct from calls which have already been through a short-listing process and are, therefore, only open to a pre-selected group of applicants. In addition, some donors use the term “open calls” to describe grant programmes which are continuously open – i.e. that do not have submission deadlines and accept applications as long as funds are available.

Lots

Calls for proposals may be divided into separate lots, each with a budgetary allocation and a thematic focus.

The idea is to ensure that global budgets can be properly spread across core priorities.

Tenders

Effectively, applicants need to demonstrate that they have the resources, experience and methodologies needed to achieve the project’s goals as well as a deep understanding of the operating environment and context in which the project will unfold.

The financial offer should also be competitive but this is not simply a question of undercutting the rival consortia. Usually, the scoring matrix is weighted in favour of the technical offer, so a very strong proposal can win a tender, even if the financial offer is not the lowest of those submitted.

Terms of Reference

ToRs vary enormously in the level of detail presented, ranging from just a few lines to dozens of pages.

In the case of two-stage competitive tenders, this document may be published only after the applicants have been short-listed.

This section looks at templates commonly used by donors and provides some insight into how they should be completed.

Generally speaking, most templates cover the same focus areas, are based on a similar structure and follow the same logic.

Main building blocks for templates

Rationale: the reasons why the project is needed

Target groups: who the target groups and final beneficiaries are; why they have been selected

Impact and outcomes: how the project will improve the situation of its target groups and beneficiaries

Activities: what will be done in order to bring about this change

Methodology and approach: why these activities have been chosen and how they will be implemented

Monitoring and evaluation: how you will measure the project’s progress towards its expected outcomes and targets

Sustainability: how you will ensure that the project continues to benefit its target groups after the end of grant funding

Risks and assumptions: what factors could prevent the project from achieving its goals and what conditions need to be in place for the project to remain viable

Timeline: when activities will be delivered and when key milestones will be met

Resourcing plan: who will deliver the activities and how their work/performance will be managed

ACCESS TO SUBSECTIONS

To find out about joining GFMD and learn about the other benefits of members

or

EXAMPLE TEMPLATES

Approach

Proposal-writing should be a creative process.

It’s far more than filling in a form or ticking boxes – it’s an opportunity to pitch an idea, to make it compelling, credible and inspiring.

Equally importantly, it’s a chance to work with other professionals who may have different ideas, experiences and skills.

This interaction can be extremely rewarding. It can enrich your own knowledge base and broaden your worldview. It can also play an important role in networking building and institutional development.

The approach to writing a proposal is highly individual. Some like to build it line by line, section by section; others start off by taking a more impressionistic approach, then hone and fine-tune the narrative through multiple drafts.

An important first step, however, is to establish the key points you want to make under each section heading to ensure that you avoid unnecessary repetition through the narrative and that you successfully address all the key requirements.

The first step

As noted in Module 6, a skeleton outline populated with bullet points can be very helpful in getting a handle on the overall workload and assigning tasks at an early stage in the process.

It also allows for a comprehensive “audit” of what existing material can be reused or repackaged for the purposes of this bid and what needs to be developed from scratch.

Psychologically, it’s a good idea to get as many words on paper as soon as possible since contemplating long vistas of empty pages can be dispiriting!

Bringing in expertise

As the process unfolds, try to involve colleagues and external experts as much as possible.

Even if you do not have the budget to pay for outside support, you should think about simple informant interviews with individuals who can provide knowledge and experience that you do not have yourself or cannot source internally.

These should include any experts who have agreed to be involved in the project if it comes to fruition. They may be prepared to give their time and effort free of charge.

Language and style

Proposals are formal documents that, if successful, will later become part of your contract with the donor.

The style should, therefore, be dry and businesslike, drawing on the terminology common to the development community and reflecting an academic rigour in any discussion of research or background material.

However, proposals do not need to be dull. They should aim to communicate your own passion for the subject matter and paint a clear picture of how your proposed activities will make a difference in people’s lives.

How to make your proposal shine

The following techniques can be used to make sure your proposal stands out from the pile:

Use case studies

Write a compelling executive summary

Use short, concise sentences

Pitch the idea, not the organisation

Ensure coherence and continuity

Presentation

Proposals should be clearly and neatly presented with strong section headings and, where possible, enough white space to ensure that the narrative does not become overwhelming.

Proposals often suffer from dense slabs of text that provide too much general discussion without presenting concrete activities and logical steps.

Design and layout

Some leading agencies invest significant time and resources into graphic design, arguing that this helps to make their proposal memorable and provides welcome relief for evaluators who have navigated their way through poorly formatted documents and unremitting swathes of verbiage.

It is unclear whether or not this investment pays off. In all likelihood, a good design will not save a bad proposal but it's possible that a good proposal may be perceived as an excellent proposal if it is well designed.

Of course, when the donor includes prescriptive guidelines for page limits and margin widths, there is very little room for manoeuvre.

However, whatever the constraints, you should focus on ensuring that a document is readable, usable and well signposted.

This is, perhaps, more important than cramming every possible word into the available space, at the expense of margins, paragraph returns and readable font sizes.

The golden rules for presentation

Clarity

Consistency

Continuity

Conciseness

Drafting

Most proposals are developed by a small team, even if some of the team members may only contribute a small part of the narrative, the budget or the supporting documents.

In order to ensure that the master document remains manageable and accessible, it is worth encouraging contributors to observe certain parameters.

Establish a common discipline for “mark-up”

Copy, paste & generic content

Graphics

Word count

Sources

Time management

Use your best writers

Post scriptum

Throughout the process, it is helpful to put yourself in the evaluators’ shoes and recognise their key priorities.

In theory, their job is to identify the projects which are most likely to achieve the goals set by their paymasters and which are least likely to cause reputational damage or political fallout.

First and foremost, therefore, the evaluator will be looking for the following elements:

A comprehensive understanding of the operating environment and the needs of the target groups

Adherence to programmatic goals

Proper resourcing

Access to other stakeholders

Measurable outcomes

Good value for money

A viable methodology that takes the risks and assumptions into account

A project legacy in the form of institutional and/or sectoral sustainability

Expression of Interest

Concept note

This is a 4-5 page document setting out the fundamental ideas and approach for a project as well as describing any formal partnerships that are integral to the project design.

Concept notes are usually requested as the first stage of a grant application process, thereby giving donors the chance to short-list those proposals which, in their view, best reflect the goals and priorities of the programme.

Full application

A full application enables would-be grantees to put meat on the bones of their idea, presenting key aspects of the proposal under generic section headings.

Technical Offer

Financial Offer

Steering Committee

Contracting Authority

The donor is often referred to as the Contracting Authority which is responsible for disbursing the funding and ensuring proper accountability over the project lifecycle.

Consortium

Donors encourage applications from consortia formed for the purposes of the contract.

In some cases, the other partners may be “jointly and severally liable” which means that responsibility for delivery is borne equally by the consortium members.

Lead applicant/partner

Where more than one organisation is involved in a grant application, the bidding process requires that one member of the consortium is nominated as the “lead”.

Generally, it is the lead partner which coordinates the preparation of the proposal, drives the project design and, in the event of a successful bid, signs the contract with the donor.

Junior partner

Sub-grantee

Co-applicant

Co-beneficiaries

Associates

In principle, the advantage of including associates in a bid is that they demonstrate the applicants have strong links to local actors who have the potential to strengthen the credibility or broaden the outreach of an action.

However, the fact that such organisations are unable to receive project funding generally means that this status is of interest only to state-funded institutions or organisations benefiting from other grant programmes in the same thematic area.

Affiliated entity

EU guidelines go into some detail about affiliated entities.

They may be entities controlled by the applicant (daughter companies); entities controlling the applicant (parent companies); entities under the same control as the applicant (sister companies); or members of the applicant’s network, federation or association (if the applicant has this status).

Sole applicant

Structural links can be established for the sole purpose of the implementation of the project.

The example usually given in guidelines for applicants is “an association formed by its members”.

Key Experts

Key personnel named in a bid are usually referred to as “Key Experts”.

As a rule, they have management roles as well as providing technical assistance for specific components of a project.

Non-Key Experts

Fundraising lexicon A-Z

EU guidelines go into some detail about affiliated entities.

They may be entities controlled by the applicant (daughter companies); entities controlling the applicant (parent companies); entities under the same control as the applicant (sister companies); or members of the applicant’s network, federation or association (if the applicant has this status).

Activities are the basic workstreams of a project which are physically implemented according to an agreed timeline.

In media development projects, common activities include training workshops, programme production, website development, discussion forums, legal drafting, collective lobbying, networking and study tours.

Activities are quantifiable and time-bound. They are also fully costed.

In principle, the advantage of including associates in a bid is that they demonstrate the applicants have strong links to local actors who have the potential to strengthen the credibility or broaden the outreach of an action.

The fact that such organisations are unable to receive project funding generally means that this status is of interest only to state-funded institutions or organisations benefiting from other grant programmes in the same thematic area.

Project authors are encouraged to recognise and document the factors that should be in place for a project to be viable.

According to the EU, the assumptions are

A term used most commonly by the European Commission, backstopping refers to in-house project management resources which are deployed in support of any given project.

Usually based at the implementing organisation’s headquarters, the backstopping team supports the implementation team which, in most cases, is based in the field. It can comprise senior managers and executives as well as logistics officers, technical staff and finance personnel.

Typically, responsibilities include recruitment; strategic oversight; briefing, contracting and deploying short-term consultants; knowledge management; and partner liaison. The backstopping team deals with contractual issues, including agreements with consortium partners.

It is, therefore, used to measure change and monitor progress over the project lifecycle and is often assembled in the opening phase.

In behavioural change communications, for example, the research may need to establish existing attitudes towards a target issue so that future waves of polling can establish whether or not these attitudes have changed as a result of the intervention.

This is probably the most common method for allocating funding for media projects. Donors launch a formal call that is based on key strategic goals and priorities.

An organisation’s capability statement provides the donor or potential partners with an insight into its main areas of expertise and recent track record as well as its human and technical resources.

It should be relatively short (no more than a page) and capture the salient features of the organisation’s core business.

Examples of past performance included in a capability statement should be succinct and should be carefully selected to illustrate the required areas of expertise.

It is worth remembering that, in all proposals, donors are looking for reassurances that a potential implementing partner has

• The systems in place to manage contracts of a similar size and complexity;

• A reputation for excellence, innovation and thought leadership in the target theme(s);

• A sufficiently diverse portfolio that does not suggest over-reliance on one donor or funding source;

• A deep understanding of the operating environment.

Thus, capability statements should be tailored for each bid.

In other words, if a donor is providing 80% of the funding, then the implementing organisation will need to demonstrate that it has spent 100% of the direct costs in order to receive the full amount of the 80% contribution.

Too often, funding applications are rejected because they are not “compliant” with the rules and criteria set out in the Terms of Reference or submission guidelines. Several donors run compliance checks before applications are presented to the evaluators or evaluation committee.

These checks will include:

• the eligibility of the applicants (particularly nationality and legal status)

• the amount of funding requested

• co-funding requirements

• the inclusion of signed declarations or commitments

This is a 4-5 page document setting out the fundamental ideas and approach for a project as well as describing any formal partnerships that are integral to the project design.

Donors encourage implementing agencies to recognise and avoid the dangers of exacerbating the tensions or deepening the fault-lines that exist in post-conflict societies.

Conflict-sensitive projects should include an in-depth analysis of dividers and connectors in the conflict environment which will, in turn, help to shape the intervention strategy.

Donors encourage applications from consortia formed for the purposes of the contract. In some cases, the other partners may be “jointly and severally liable” which means that responsibility for delivery is borne equally by the consortium members.

EU budgets, for example, allow for up to 5%.

A contingency plan is an essential element of an adaptive management strategy, showing that there are viable ways of ensuring business continuity, even if threat levels are elevated.

A contingency plan should look at multiple scenarios whilst mainstreaming measures for safeguarding the project’s reputation and credibility.

These plans are live documents that should be reviewed and updated as a project unfolds.

The donor is often referred to as the Contracting Authority which is responsible for disbursing the funding and ensuring proper accountability over the project lifecycle.

Implementing agencies may be able to call on contributions from third parties which do not have a financial value attached but which, nevertheless, enhance the perceived benefits of the intervention.

The common wisdom is that these contributions relate to any services provided to a project which have indeterminable costs and which, therefore, cannot be supported by specific financial evidence.

This is essentially funding that covers fixed overheads, including full-time personnel and office costs and which is allocated to ensure the beneficiaries can continue to operate in the long term without reliance on a consistent level of project income.

Institutional or core funding is the Holy Grail for most development organisations, be they charities, NGOs or foundations.

Core funding gives organisations greater space to invest in business development, research, policy-making, communications and other areas which are challenging to include in project budgets.

It insulates them from the economic impact of sea changes in the donor landscape or from the peaks and troughs which are an inevitable feature of not-for-profit operations.

Cost-share is a principle favoured by US donors and has similarities with the EU concept of co-funding. However, cost-share is more aspirational than co-funding.

At the proposal stage, applicants are asked to demonstrate a commitment to covering a percentage of the project’s costs from other sources.

Such commitments are usually the subject of a cost-share plan which forms part of the application. The plan should provide “realistic, manageable, and allowable” estimates of direct contributions from participating organisations or leveraged funding from other donor sources.

While projects often comprise a set of linear or concurrent activity streams, there are likely to be elements that are relevant to multiple activities. Gender mainstreaming is a good example since a focus on the equality or empowerment of women stakeholders could be integral to a training programme and a production component that is part of the same project.

It is a product or service that the implementing agency has undertaken to deliver within a specified timeframe and for a specified budget.

All costs relating to project-specific human resources, travel and subsistence, equipment, office expenditure, events, research, financial services etc are considered to be “direct costs”.

Supporting documentation is required for all direct costs in the form of payroll slips, receipts, invoices, itemised bills and direct debit payments. Where the input of salaried personnel is concerned, donors may require timesheets detailing days worked on the project.

Donors will expect applicants to reference appropriate measures in project proposals and, where relevant, to disaggregate indicators in order to reflect the impact on key identity groups.

The OECD provides the following definition:

Increasingly, donors require assurances regarding protection from violence, exploitation and abuse through involvement, directly or indirectly, with their suppliers and programmes.

“to avoid doing harm by ensuring that our interventions do not sustain unequal power relations, reinforce social exclusion and predatory institutions, exacerbate conflict, contribute to human rights risks, and/or create or exacerbate resource scarcity, climate change and/or environmental damage, and/or increasing communities’ vulnerabilities to shocks and trends. We seek to ensure our interventions do not displace/undermine local capacity or impose long-term financial burdens on partner governments”.

Both donors and implementing organisations have a duty to safeguard the individuals and institutions involved in development programmes.

This extends to contracted personnel, partner organisations and participants in project activities.

Duty of care plans should be equitable, offering similar levels of support to local as well as international stakeholders.

They cover issues such as risk assessment, physical security, digital security, safety training, knowledge management, emergency protocols, contingency plans and roles and responsibilities.

Adherence to this duty of care should be included in interim reporting.

Most funding programmes have strict eligibility criteria determining which organisations (or individuals) are able to apply for grants.

Typically, the criteria will include nationality (e.g. the country in which the organisation is registered) and legal status but they may also include requirements for applicants to demonstrate that they have delivered projects of a similar size, value and complexity in the recent past (often three years).

Donors do not make exceptions for eligibility criteria since they are fundamental to their commitment to fairness, openness and transparency. Consequently, they should be strictly adhered to.

Generally, these are determined by the generic headings presented in budget templates but further guidance may be provided for the avoidance of doubt.

These may be renegotiated during the contracting stage.

Credible endline research will need to target the same identity groups as the baseline research, although it will aim to differentiate between those who have been exposed to the programme outputs and those who have not.

This is effectively the cost of the audit(s) which the implementing consortium is contractually obliged to conduct according to a specified schedule.

The release of further funds is often contingent on the results of the audit.

The value (or rate) is usually determined by the bidder and varies according to categories of expert (e.g. Key, Senior, Junior etc).

The rate is “loaded” which means that it should cover the actual cost of the expert (i.e. the consultancy fee) and the management overhead.

During the implementation phase, contractors report against the delivery of these days by providing signed timesheets detailing the number of days worked by each expert over the course of a month.

The EU offers the following definition:

“those who will benefit from the action in the long term at the level of the society or sector at large”.

Two examples from media development projects:

A full application enables would-be grantees to put meat on the bones of their idea, presenting key aspects of the proposal under generic section headings.

Gender considerations are mainstreamed in the vast majority of donor-funded programmes but the desired approach is often misinterpreted.

Equality is not as simple as ensuring that groups of participants are properly balanced between men and women or that research efforts will ensure that 50% of respondents are women.

Inclusion is important but empowerment and decision-making are also key factors.

Donors also want to see proposals that break gender stereotypes by putting women in non-traditional roles and that promote equal opportunities in recruitment drives.

It is not possible for contractors to charge a management fee against incidental expenditure and financial reports need to include detailed documentary evidence of the actual costs incurred.

A contract amendment is required to transfer funds from the incidental expenditure budget to the fees-based budget. It is not possible to transfer funds in the opposite direction.

Also called “objectively verifiable indicators” (OVIs), indicators provide donors with a yardstick for assessing the actual impact of a project. Indicators are usually linked to both outcomes and outputs and are, perhaps, most useful when they incorporate a numerical value (e.g. a percentage or a quantity).

According to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office:

“Indicators are performance measures, which tell us what will be measured not what is to be achieved”.

They should be specific and relevant as well as being disaggregated where appropriate.

In acknowledgement of the fact that it is not possible to itemise all costs incurred by an implementing organisation, most donors provide an allowance for “indirect costs”.

In general, “indirect costs” are fixed operating costs including contributions to rent, communications, legal services, senior management, IT support etc.

This allowance is usually calculated as a percentage of the direct costs (EU grant contracts, for example, offer up to 7% while US government contracts allow applicants to use a Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement - NICRA).

It is usually described through the formulaic use of “if”, “then” and “therefore” and is a handy way of articulating the logical progression of an idea.

The intervention logic may also include a description of linkages and relationships between activity clusters.

Co-applicants or consortium partners are sometimes referred to as “junior partners”.

This term does not detract from the importance of their role in a project. It simply indicates that they are not the lead partner (or “prime” in US parlance) and, therefore, will not be direct signatories of the contract with the funder.

Key personnel named in a bid are usually referred to as “Key Experts”.

As a rule, they have management roles as well as providing technical assistance for specific components of a project.

KPIs should be agreed upon at the beginning of a programme and mapped in progress reports. They may be revised if a project’s design and work plan undergo significant modifications due to unforeseen changes in the operating environment.

Typical KPIs include:

• Quality and delivery, including timely achievement of milestones and effective risk management

• Financial management and forecasting including cost controls and timely submission of forecasts and invoices

• Personnel performance, including appropriate levels of expertise allocated to the programme and ability to address problems with appropriate escalation channels

• Client relationship management, including responsiveness and the regularity of communications

• Environmental and social safeguards including efforts to minimise the impact on the environment and a proactive policy of employing local staff wherever possible

Donors have shown a keen interest in proper knowledge management in recent years. The aim is to capture learning generated by a project and to share it with stakeholders, both internally and externally.

Effective knowledge management can play an important role in ensuring that good practice models are made available to other actors operating in the same field while also giving media development organisations the chance to avoid common mistakes or misconceptions.

Another key aspect of knowledge management within projects is the ability to ensure business continuity during changes in personnel or partnerships.

Where more than one organisation is involved in a grant application, the bidding process requires that one member of the consortium is nominated as the “lead”.

Generally, it is the lead partner which coordinates the preparation of the proposal, drives the project design and, in the event of a successful bid, signs the contract with the donor.

Another key aspect of learning is the management of this knowledge, disseminating lessons learned to partners and other stakeholders, thereby bringing benefits on an institutional as well as a project level.

Level of effort is a term used to describe the proportion of time that an individual member of staff is likely to devote to a project.

Most donors accept that logframes are dynamic documents that should be revisited and updated as a project unfolds.

Implementing organisations should not be afraid to renegotiate proposed targets in order to properly manage expectations among key stakeholders.

Calls for proposals may be divided into separate lots, each with a budgetary allocation and a thematic focus. The idea is to ensure that global budgets can be properly spread across core priorities.

Where is it not possible to calculate the unit costs, some donors (particularly the EU) may allow for a lump sum, flat rate or apportionment to be presented in the budget.

These so-called “simplified” costs are reviewed on a case-by-case basis and often form the subject of negotiations after a contract has been awarded.

The term “margin” is most often used in relation to fee-based contracts and is effectively the difference between the actual costs of deployment and the agreed rate.

For example, if the daily rate for an expert is €800 but the expert charges €500 per day, then the margin would be €300. Contractors use the margin or “profit” to cover their management and operating expenses.

Also termed the “approach”, the methodology comprises the techniques and methods which will be employed by the project in order to deliver against its programmatic commitments.

It should also explain why certain techniques have been selected.

For example, when presenting the merits of on-the-job mentoring as the chosen approach for a capacity-building programme, a grant applicant might explain that mentoring can be more effective than classroom-based training because the learning-by-doing approach ensures that relevant skills are passed on in a practical work environment.

Research conducted at the midway point helps to determine the extent to which programming is having the desired impact and gives implementing organisations the chance to modify their approach and strategy if the results suggest otherwise.