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: 1
Median 20 hours
Latest Reviews
Jul 23, 2025
applied in 2025
PHF staff are approachable to ask for advice but can make mistakes.
PHF's interests are extremely narrow, so be careful to ensure that the work you do is exactly what they are looking for. If you feel that what they are looking for is quite precise and that it's not exactly what you deliver, it may not be worth applying. Some of what they are looking for may also seem unreasonable or unrealistic. Don't be afraid to decide that it's not worth it.
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
While PHF's staff were accessible and approachable, they mistakenly sent us the wrong deadline. Even the incorrect deadline they sent was unreasonably tight and demanded a number of staff postponing other work in order to complete the stage 2 application in such little time. Their feedback suggests an even narrower set of interests than their guidance, some of which seems unrealistic to the people delivering the work on the ground (e.g. the level of school staff involvement), or seems so specific as to force organisations to change what they do (e.g. curriculum-focused, teacher-led, in-school-time, but not statutory requirement).
How successfully do you think this funder is accomplishing its goals as a funder?
Average
I imagine it's successful in accomplishing its goals, since its goals seem to be extremely narrowly defined. Whether that's a good thing, however, is less clear to me.
Tell us one thing that this funder does really well
PHF engages seriously with your application, asking pointed and specific questions that demonstrate that they understand what you're doing. However, some of these seem a bit repetitive, and overall PHF's interests were ultimately too narrow for us.
If you had one piece of advice to give to this funder (about grantmaking or anything else), what would it be?
Try to be open-minded about what good work might look like. Currently, your interests are extremely narrow and unrealistic, but your offer of vital multi-year funding means many organisations still feel it's worth applying - when in reality, it's a waste of their valuable time.
When you set very narrow parameters for what kind of thing you're looking to fund, you are not finding organisations who align with your interests. What you're actually doing is incentivising organisations to change what they do, in order to access your funding. This isn't necessarily a bad thing - in fact it might be your strategy - but it probably means that organisations are doing things that they aren't experts in, in order to satisfy your requirements.
Further, your aims are so narrow as to barely exist: curriculum-focused, in school time, delivered by teachers, but not statutory requirement - this is almost self-defeating.
Finally, we are working at a time where schools are telling us that they simply have no money for anything - to the extent that many are making teaching staff redundant. The idea that teachers will have the time or the headspace to work on co-designing or co-delivering arts-based learning programmes during school time is, - in the region we work in, at least - completely and wildly unrealistic.
How was your relationship overall with the funder?
Poor
If you believe the contents of this review are inappropriate please contact us via email.
Apr 9, 2025
Funded for amount requested - applied in 2025
I want to take a moment to acknowledge and deeply appreciate the way [Team Member Name] handled my grant application.
As a working Muslim navigating the third-sector, the process of applying for funding can often feel alienating or misaligned — both practically and culturally. There are a number of unspoken barriers, from language and expectations to how values and working practices are recognised (or not). It can be hard to feel seen.
But [Team Member Name] went above and beyond to change that experience for me.
At every step of the process, they made me feel comfortable, respected and genuinely heard. There communication was clear and kind, and [Team Member Name] created space for nuance in a system that often feels rigid. [Team Member Name] never made me feel like I had to "perform" my legitimacy — something I’ve quietly learned to do in other spaces — but instead affirmed that my work, my context and my way of working had value.
It might seem small, but these things matter. And for people like me — working from the margins, trying to build something meaningful and sustainable — they mean everything.
Thank you, [Team Member Name], for embodying what inclusive, thoughtful grantmaking can look like.
Pros
Culturally sensitive
Cons
What is your relationship with the funder for this experience?
Current or former grantee
If you were funded tell us the outcome
Funded for amount requested
What year was this experience?
2025
How would you rate this funder's accessibility?
Excellent
Get [Team Member Name] running interpersonal skills workshops for staff.
How successfully do you think this funder is accomplishing its goals as a funder?
Excellent
Tell us one thing that this funder does really well
Hiring [Team Member Name]
If you had one piece of advice to give to this funder (about grantmaking or anything else), what would it be?
Promote [Team Member Name]
How was your relationship overall with the funder?
Excellent
If you believe the contents of this review are inappropriate please contact us via email.
Sep 5, 2024
applied in 2024
Not fully understanding the criteria before applying probably the reason for rejection
Strong EOI with an innovative combination of youth and outdoors
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?
2024
How would you rate this funder's accessibility?
Average
How successfully do you think this funder is accomplishing its goals as a funder?
Excellent
Amazing support once given
Tell us one thing that this funder does really well
As above
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 3, 2024
applied in 2024
Do not apply if you're a smaller organisation.
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?
2024
How would you rate this funder's accessibility?
Average
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
fund the arts and arts education
If you had one piece of advice to give to this funder (about grantmaking or anything else), what would it be?
support smaller, grassroots organisation. Provide tools to enable them to be funding ready. Further support for black led organisations and those supporting marginalised communities.
How was your relationship overall with the funder?
Poor
If you believe the contents of this review are inappropriate please contact us via email.
Feb 12, 2024
applied in 2024
I think i would tell them that unless they are a large organisation funding structural work at a national level - they should not waste their time.
This organisation takes a very long time to respond and seems to have refocused its funding away from individual benefit to people to more "structural" work - without really being clear about that in the guidance.
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?
2024
How would you rate this funder's accessibility?
Poor
There was very long periods of delay with little or no communication.
How successfully do you think this funder is accomplishing its goals as a funder?
Poor
There is a large diference between the guidance and the feedback as to how decisions are being made.
Tell us one thing that this funder does really well
It does provide large amounts of funding to certain reciepients
If you had one piece of advice to give to this funder (about grantmaking or anything else), what would it be?
I think the focus should be on faster turnarounds and a guidance which is clearer on what will not be funded.
At present the guidances seems to raise false hope.
If they only want to fund structural work then they need to say that more clearly.
How was your relationship overall with the funder?
Poor
Is there anything else that's be useful for others to know to understand this funder?
They are mostly interested in funding larger scale "structural change"
If you believe the contents of this review are inappropriate please contact us via email.
Jul 23, 2025
applied in 2025
PHF staff are approachable to ask for advice but can make mistakes.
PHF's interests are extremely narrow, so be careful to ensure that the work you do is exactly what they are looking for. If you feel that what they are looking for is quite precise and that it's not exactly what you deliver, it may not be worth applying. Some of what they are looking for may also seem unreasonable or unrealistic. Don't be afraid to decide that it's not worth it.
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
While PHF's staff were accessible and approachable, they mistakenly sent us the wrong deadline. Even the incorrect deadline they sent was unreasonably tight and demanded a number of staff postponing other work in order to complete the stage 2 application in such little time. Their feedback suggests an even narrower set of interests than their guidance, some of which seems unrealistic to the people delivering the work on the ground (e.g. the level of school staff involvement), or seems so specific as to force organisations to change what they do (e.g. curriculum-focused, teacher-led, in-school-time, but not statutory requirement).
How successfully do you think this funder is accomplishing its goals as a funder?
Average
I imagine it's successful in accomplishing its goals, since its goals seem to be extremely narrowly defined. Whether that's a good thing, however, is less clear to me.
Tell us one thing that this funder does really well
PHF engages seriously with your application, asking pointed and specific questions that demonstrate that they understand what you're doing. However, some of these seem a bit repetitive, and overall PHF's interests were ultimately too narrow for us.
If you had one piece of advice to give to this funder (about grantmaking or anything else), what would it be?
Try to be open-minded about what good work might look like. Currently, your interests are extremely narrow and unrealistic, but your offer of vital multi-year funding means many organisations still feel it's worth applying - when in reality, it's a waste of their valuable time. When you set very narrow parameters for what kind of thing you're looking to fund, you are not finding organisations who align with your interests. What you're actually doing is incentivising organisations to change what they do, in order to access your funding. This isn't necessarily a bad thing - in fact it might be your strategy - but it probably means that organisations are doing things that they aren't experts in, in order to satisfy your requirements. Further, your aims are so narrow as to barely exist: curriculum-focused, in school time, delivered by teachers, but not statutory requirement - this is almost self-defeating. Finally, we are working at a time where schools are telling us that they simply have no money for anything - to the extent that many are making teaching staff redundant. The idea that teachers will have the time or the headspace to work on co-designing or co-delivering arts-based learning programmes during school time is, - in the region we work in, at least - completely and wildly unrealistic.
How was your relationship overall with the funder?
Poor
Apr 9, 2025
Funded for amount requested - applied in 2025
I want to take a moment to acknowledge and deeply appreciate the way [Team Member Name] handled my grant application.
As a working Muslim navigating the third-sector, the process of applying for funding can often feel alienating or misaligned — both practically and culturally. There are a number of unspoken barriers, from language and expectations to how values and working practices are recognised (or not). It can be hard to feel seen.
But [Team Member Name] went above and beyond to change that experience for me.
At every step of the process, they made me feel comfortable, respected and genuinely heard. There communication was clear and kind, and [Team Member Name] created space for nuance in a system that often feels rigid. [Team Member Name] never made me feel like I had to "perform" my legitimacy — something I’ve quietly learned to do in other spaces — but instead affirmed that my work, my context and my way of working had value.
It might seem small, but these things matter. And for people like me — working from the margins, trying to build something meaningful and sustainable — they mean everything.
Thank you, [Team Member Name], for embodying what inclusive, thoughtful grantmaking can look like.
Pros
Culturally sensitive
Cons
Pros
Cons
What is your relationship with the funder for this experience?
Current or former grantee
If you were funded tell us the outcome
Funded for amount requested
What year was this experience?
2025
How would you rate this funder's accessibility?
Excellent
Get [Team Member Name] running interpersonal skills workshops for staff.
How successfully do you think this funder is accomplishing its goals as a funder?
Excellent
Tell us one thing that this funder does really well
Hiring [Team Member Name]
If you had one piece of advice to give to this funder (about grantmaking or anything else), what would it be?
Promote [Team Member Name]
How was your relationship overall with the funder?
Excellent
Sep 5, 2024
applied in 2024
Not fully understanding the criteria before applying probably the reason for rejection
Strong EOI with an innovative combination of youth and outdoors
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?
2024
How would you rate this funder's accessibility?
Average
How successfully do you think this funder is accomplishing its goals as a funder?
Excellent
Amazing support once given
Tell us one thing that this funder does really well
As above
How was your relationship overall with the funder?
Average
Apr 3, 2024
applied in 2024
Do not apply if you're a smaller organisation.
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?
2024
How would you rate this funder's accessibility?
Average
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
fund the arts and arts education
If you had one piece of advice to give to this funder (about grantmaking or anything else), what would it be?
support smaller, grassroots organisation. Provide tools to enable them to be funding ready. Further support for black led organisations and those supporting marginalised communities.
How was your relationship overall with the funder?
Poor
Feb 12, 2024
applied in 2024
I think i would tell them that unless they are a large organisation funding structural work at a national level - they should not waste their time.
This organisation takes a very long time to respond and seems to have refocused its funding away from individual benefit to people to more "structural" work - without really being clear about that in the guidance.
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?
2024
How would you rate this funder's accessibility?
Poor
There was very long periods of delay with little or no communication.
How successfully do you think this funder is accomplishing its goals as a funder?
Poor
There is a large diference between the guidance and the feedback as to how decisions are being made.
Tell us one thing that this funder does really well
It does provide large amounts of funding to certain reciepients
If you had one piece of advice to give to this funder (about grantmaking or anything else), what would it be?
I think the focus should be on faster turnarounds and a guidance which is clearer on what will not be funded. At present the guidances seems to raise false hope. If they only want to fund structural work then they need to say that more clearly.
How was your relationship overall with the funder?
Poor
Is there anything else that's be useful for others to know to understand this funder?
They are mostly interested in funding larger scale "structural change"