Paul Hamlyn Foundation
Paul Hamlyn Foundation is one of the largest independent grant-makers in the UK. Our vision is a just society in which everyone, especially young people, can realise their full potential and enjoy fulfilling and creative lives. Our mission is to be an effective and independent funder, using all our resources to create opportunities and support social change. We partner with inspiring organisations and individuals to make sure that people facing disadvantage are at the heart of leading change and designing solutions to overcome inequality.
Overview
Total reviews: 38
Median 20 hours
Latest Reviews
Jun 22, 2026
applied in 2026
Fair
What is your relationship with the funder for this experience?
Applied and not funded
If you were funded tell us the outcome
What year was this experience?
2026
How would you rate this funder's accessibility?
Excellent
How successfully do you think this funder is accomplishing its goals as a funder?
Average
Tell us one thing that this funder does really well
Feedback included in response
How was your relationship overall with the funder?
Average
If you believe the contents of this review are inappropriate please contact us via email.
Apr 1, 2026
applied in 2026
Don't bother applying.
They are only interested in organisations/people that their teams know or have heard of. They are not interested in people stuck in the fringes who don't possess the funding language that they are used to. They are also not interested in funding people over 30 years old.
What is your relationship with the funder for this experience?
Applied and not funded
If you were funded tell us the outcome
What year was this experience?
2026
How would you rate this funder's accessibility?
Average
How successfully do you think this funder is accomplishing its goals as a funder?
Poor
If you had one piece of advice to give to this funder (about grantmaking or anything else), what would it be?
Give individual feedback. Even if it is only several lines of summary. Your reviewers take notes during this process. Why not synthesize these notes to give the applicant some sense of hope and understanding after they have poured their hearts out.
How was your relationship overall with the funder?
Poor
If you believe the contents of this review are inappropriate please contact us via email.
Mar 12, 2026
Other - applied in 2025
the application was fine, but rejection email should be a bit more considerate and perhaps avoid saying do not apply for another 12 months. the applicant is already disappointed and this seems to rub salt in the wounds. if someone decides to apply again this would already be in the guidance document so does not need to be said in the email of rejection
What is your relationship with the funder for this experience?
Applied and not funded
If you were funded tell us the outcome
Other
What year was this experience?
2025
How would you rate this funder's accessibility?
Average
If you believe the contents of this review are inappropriate please contact us via email.
Dec 8, 2025
applied in 2025
I would seriously question whether it is worth spending precious organisational time working up projects and applying. It appears that you need to answer questions they don't actually ask at first stage application in order to get through to second stage, as well as the questions they do, within a word count that is completely unrealistic. (I am not by any means inexperienced!)
What is your relationship with the funder for this experience?
Applied and not funded
If you were funded tell us the outcome
What year was this experience?
2025
How would you rate this funder's accessibility?
Poor
How successfully do you think this funder is accomplishing its goals as a funder?
Average
If you had one piece of advice to give to this funder (about grantmaking or anything else), what would it be?
Please think about making it clear what the exact questions you would like answered are in the application form, and giving enough word count for people to include the level of detail you require. It is so time consuming, wasteful of charity resources, and demoralising to be effectively told that you did not accurately guess what the question was looking for (which the feedback said was something slightly different than the question actually asked), and that you did not put enough detail on answers where the word limit made it literally impossible to do so. It feels a bit like applicants are being tested on how good their guessing skills are, and being set up to fail.
How was your relationship overall with the funder?
Average
If you believe the contents of this review are inappropriate please contact us via email.
Dec 5, 2025
applied in 2025
Whilst I fully appreciate the need for applicants to be able to succinctly and convincingly convey the essence and complexities of a project proposal, the tight restrictions on the word count for most sections (first round application process) make it very difficult to adequately convey the scope, partnerships, iterative relationships with teachers and leaders in partner schools, the professional learning programme to be offered and intended outcomes for schools, leaders, teachers and of course their pupils.
Fitting my text to the word count took the vast majority of the time in completing the grant application and I was aware that I could not include key information - which I hoped would be possible if successful in reaching the second round.
What is your relationship with the funder for this experience?
Applied and not funded
If you were funded tell us the outcome
What year was this experience?
2025
How would you rate this funder's accessibility?
Average
The guidelines were very clear and for these I would tick the excellent option. But the limitations on the word counts (as referred to in my previous answer) mean that I decided to tick the average option.
How successfully do you think this funder is accomplishing its goals as a funder?
Excellent
Is there anything else that's be useful for others to know to understand this funder?
I'd like to note that I very much appreciated the feedback on my first round application, which will be helpful in informing future funding proposals. Thank you.
If you believe the contents of this review are inappropriate please contact us via email.
Jun 22, 2026
applied in 2026
Fair
What is your relationship with the funder for this experience?
Applied and not funded
If you were funded tell us the outcome
What year was this experience?
2026
How would you rate this funder's accessibility?
Excellent
How successfully do you think this funder is accomplishing its goals as a funder?
Average
Tell us one thing that this funder does really well
Feedback included in response
How was your relationship overall with the funder?
Average
Apr 1, 2026
applied in 2026
Don't bother applying.
They are only interested in organisations/people that their teams know or have heard of. They are not interested in people stuck in the fringes who don't possess the funding language that they are used to. They are also not interested in funding people over 30 years old.
What is your relationship with the funder for this experience?
Applied and not funded
If you were funded tell us the outcome
What year was this experience?
2026
How would you rate this funder's accessibility?
Average
How successfully do you think this funder is accomplishing its goals as a funder?
Poor
If you had one piece of advice to give to this funder (about grantmaking or anything else), what would it be?
Give individual feedback. Even if it is only several lines of summary. Your reviewers take notes during this process. Why not synthesize these notes to give the applicant some sense of hope and understanding after they have poured their hearts out.
How was your relationship overall with the funder?
Poor
Mar 12, 2026
Other - applied in 2025
the application was fine, but rejection email should be a bit more considerate and perhaps avoid saying do not apply for another 12 months. the applicant is already disappointed and this seems to rub salt in the wounds. if someone decides to apply again this would already be in the guidance document so does not need to be said in the email of rejection
What is your relationship with the funder for this experience?
Applied and not funded
If you were funded tell us the outcome
Other
What year was this experience?
2025
How would you rate this funder's accessibility?
Average
Dec 8, 2025
applied in 2025
I would seriously question whether it is worth spending precious organisational time working up projects and applying. It appears that you need to answer questions they don't actually ask at first stage application in order to get through to second stage, as well as the questions they do, within a word count that is completely unrealistic. (I am not by any means inexperienced!)
What is your relationship with the funder for this experience?
Applied and not funded
If you were funded tell us the outcome
What year was this experience?
2025
How would you rate this funder's accessibility?
Poor
How successfully do you think this funder is accomplishing its goals as a funder?
Average
If you had one piece of advice to give to this funder (about grantmaking or anything else), what would it be?
Please think about making it clear what the exact questions you would like answered are in the application form, and giving enough word count for people to include the level of detail you require. It is so time consuming, wasteful of charity resources, and demoralising to be effectively told that you did not accurately guess what the question was looking for (which the feedback said was something slightly different than the question actually asked), and that you did not put enough detail on answers where the word limit made it literally impossible to do so. It feels a bit like applicants are being tested on how good their guessing skills are, and being set up to fail.
How was your relationship overall with the funder?
Average
Dec 5, 2025
applied in 2025
Whilst I fully appreciate the need for applicants to be able to succinctly and convincingly convey the essence and complexities of a project proposal, the tight restrictions on the word count for most sections (first round application process) make it very difficult to adequately convey the scope, partnerships, iterative relationships with teachers and leaders in partner schools, the professional learning programme to be offered and intended outcomes for schools, leaders, teachers and of course their pupils.
Fitting my text to the word count took the vast majority of the time in completing the grant application and I was aware that I could not include key information - which I hoped would be possible if successful in reaching the second round.
What is your relationship with the funder for this experience?
Applied and not funded
If you were funded tell us the outcome
What year was this experience?
2025
How would you rate this funder's accessibility?
Average
The guidelines were very clear and for these I would tick the excellent option. But the limitations on the word counts (as referred to in my previous answer) mean that I decided to tick the average option.
How successfully do you think this funder is accomplishing its goals as a funder?
Excellent
Is there anything else that's be useful for others to know to understand this funder?
I'd like to note that I very much appreciated the feedback on my first round application, which will be helpful in informing future funding proposals. Thank you.