The Voice Beside the Bid: Selecting and Preparing Grant Referees for Grassroots Charities

Grant applications are often assessed on the strength of the applicant's own account. The referee section offers something different: an external voice that can confirm, qualify or contextualise the claims made in the bid. For small UK charities, where formal evaluation capacity may be limited, that external voice can carry disproportionate weight. It can also, if handled carelessly, introduce doubt into an otherwise credible application.

The reference request is therefore not a formality to be completed at the last minute. It is a piece of relationship management, a data protection question and a test of whether the charity can present evidence beyond its own narrative.

Begin with the purpose, not the name

Before identifying a referee, applicants should establish what the funder is likely to test. A reference may be used to verify governance and financial oversight, to confirm delivery capacity, to evidence partnership working or to substantiate claims about local need. These are different questions, and they may not be best answered by the same person.

A trustee chair may be well placed to speak to board oversight and safeguarding arrangements. A local authority officer may be able to confirm a charity's role in a coordinated service. An accountant may provide assurance on financial controls. A long-standing community partner may speak to reach and reputation. The strongest reference is not necessarily from the most senior person available; it is from the person who can speak specifically to the claims that matter.

Applicants should also consider whether the proposed referee has direct knowledge of the work in question. A generic letter from a respected figure who has had little contact with the charity may impress briefly but falter under scrutiny. Funders increasingly look for specificity: what the referee observed, what changed, and how they know.

Consent, confidentiality and the paper trail

No referee should be named without explicit consent. This is both a matter of courtesy and a requirement under UK data protection practice. The charity should explain which funder will be contacted, the purpose and value of the grant, the likely timing, and the kind of questions that may be asked. It should also confirm that the referee is willing to be contacted and has the capacity to respond within the funder's timetable.

Consent should be recorded. A short email confirming the referee's agreement, the date and the application concerned is sufficient for most small charities. If the referee is providing information in a professional capacity, they should understand that their response may be shared with the funder's assessment panel. Confidentiality should be discussed openly: referees should not disclose service user information, and the charity should not ask them to comment on matters outside their knowledge.

Where a referee is a current employee or trustee, the charity should be alert to perceived independence. Many funders accept internal referees for governance or delivery questions, but some will expect at least one external voice. Reading the guidance carefully avoids wasted effort.

Briefing notes that invite specificity

A referee who has been asked to help but not properly briefed will often produce a warm but vague letter. The applicant can reduce that risk by providing a concise briefing note. This should include a short project summary, the amount requested, the outcomes the funder will assess, the referee's relationship to the charity and two or three points the referee is well placed to evidence.

The note should not script the referee's response. Its purpose is to help them recall relevant examples and understand the funder's priorities. A useful briefing might say that the referee observed the charity's advice service during a period of increased demand, or that they can confirm the charity's role in a local partnership. It should not put words into the referee's mouth or discourage them from raising legitimate concerns.

Applicants should offer a brief conversation before the referee writes or speaks. This allows the referee to ask questions, check dates and decide whether they can help. It also gives the charity an opportunity to explain any sensitivities. A referee who is caught unprepared may give a cautious or generic response; a referee who understands the application can give a focused one.

When the funder requests a referee you have not worked with

Some funders ask for a referee from a particular category, such as a local authority, an accountant or another funder. Occasionally the requirement may be for someone independent of the applicant organisation. This can be difficult for small charities with limited networks.

The first step is to clarify the requirement with the funder. A brief email asking whether a partner organisation, umbrella body or professional adviser would meet the criteria is usually worthwhile. If an independent referee is genuinely required, the charity should approach the most relevant person early and explain why the request is being made. It is better to acknowledge a limited direct relationship than to imply a closeness that does not exist.

Where no suitable referee can be found, the charity should not manufacture a relationship. It should explain the position to the funder and offer an alternative, such as a referee who can speak to governance plus one who can speak to delivery. Funders generally prefer an honest explanation to a reference that cannot be substantiated.

The retiring referee and the question of continuity

Small charities often rely on a small number of trusted individuals. When a long-serving referee retires, moves on or changes role, the organisation can find itself without a credible external voice. This is a governance risk as much as a fundraising one.

A simple reference register can help. It should record who has agreed to act as a referee, in what capacity, for which applications and until when. Consent should be refreshed periodically. Where a referee is approaching retirement, the charity might ask whether they are willing to act for a final round or to provide a handover introduction to a successor. If the referee is leaving an organisation, a reference from the role rather than the individual may be more durable.

A small discipline with a clear return

The reference section rewards preparation. A charity that identifies the right referee, secures informed consent, provides a focused briefing and plans for succession is demonstrating the same qualities that funders look for in delivery: clarity, reliability and attention to relationships. At Hilton Foundation, we see many strong grassroots applications. The ones that handle references well tend to be the ones that understand that every part of a bid is evidence of how the organisation works.

A referee cannot rescue a weak application, and a poor referee need not sink a strong one. But a thoughtful reference can add the independent confirmation that turns a plausible proposal into a convincing one. For small charities, that is worth a little administrative care.