Lesson 6 of 10
Why a CIC is not a shortcut to funding
Learning objectives
- See what funders actually want (it isn't your legal form)
- Build the evidence base funders look for
- Stop using CIC status as a substitute for delivery track record
- Sequence grant applications around real readiness
What funders actually fund
Funders fund: a defined need, a credible team, a plan that fits their priorities, evidence the team can deliver, and a way to report results. Legal form is a hygiene check, not the unlock.
Build the evidence base first
Before you apply for £20k of grant, can you evidence: 50 sessions delivered, attendance, outcomes, 5 testimonials, safeguarding, a clean risk assessment? If not, fix that before the application — most CIC-stage rejections are evidence rejections in disguise.
Sequence applications properly
Start with small, fast-decision pots (£500–£2,500) to build a funding track record. Move to mid-sized grants (£10k–£25k) once you can evidence prior delivery. Major grants (£50k+) usually need partnerships and audited accounts. Skipping steps wastes weeks per application.
Founder insight — Derrick Twum
We've watched founders apply to a £40k grant before they had a single attendance sheet. They get rejected and blame the funder. The real fix was sequencing.
Key takeaway
Funders fund evidence and fit, not legal form. Build the evidence base before the big application.
Reflection questions
- 1What evidence base could you genuinely send a funder this week?
- 2Have you applied for small pots to build a track record?
- 3Which funders' priorities does your work genuinely fit?
- 4What partnership would strengthen your next application?
Action task
List your current evidence base (sessions, attendance, outcomes, references) and identify the one gap to fix before the next application.
Worksheet
Work through these prompts. Answers save to this device.
Answers are saved to this device only. Cloud sync coming soon.
Related MEM tools
- Funding Templates
- Impact Reporting