A promising grant can still be the wrong grant for your charity. The safest time to discover that is before anyone opens a blank application form.
An eligibility check is a short, evidence-based decision: can this organisation, for this project, request this amount, within this timetable? It is not a prediction that the funder will say yes. It is a way to avoid spending scarce fundraising time on a clear no.
Start with the current source
Use the funder's current programme page, guidance notes and application form. Save the links and note the date you checked them. Search listings are useful for discovery, but the funder's own published guidance should control your decision.
Government's Find a grant service (opens in a new tab) separates grant summaries, eligibility, dates and application instructions. The National Lottery Community Fund's preparation guidance (opens in a new tab) similarly directs applicants to the rules for each specific programme.
If two official pages conflict, do not silently choose the friendlier version. Ask the funder and keep their written answer with your application record.
Check the non-negotiables first
Read for words such as must, only, not eligible, cannot fund and applications will not be accepted. Test these areas in order:
- Organisation type. Does the programme accept registered charities, including CIOs and SCIOs, community groups, CICs, companies, schools or public bodies? If it requires a registration number or a minimum operating history, can you evidence it?
- Geography. Is eligibility based on where your organisation is registered, where the work happens, or where beneficiaries live? Those are different tests.
- Beneficiaries and purpose. Do your intended beneficiaries and activities fit the programme's stated aims? A generally worthwhile project is not automatically a fit for this particular fund.
- Size or financial thresholds. Check income bands, request limits, match-funding rules and any minimum or maximum project size. Use the accounting period the funder asks for.
- Costs. Confirm that your planned costs are permitted. Pay attention to core costs, salaries, capital items, existing work, retrospective spending and VAT.
- Timing. Can the project start and finish inside the allowed window? Does the funder prohibit work starting before a decision or signed agreement?
- Previous or current awards. Check restrictions on repeat applications, multiple live awards, resubmissions and funding for the same activity elsewhere.
A failure on one true eligibility rule is enough to stop. Do that before scoring strategic fit or writing persuasive copy.
Turn every answer into evidence
Create a compact record with four columns:
| Rule | Your answer | Evidence | Decision |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eligible organisation type | Yes | Charity registration page | Pass |
| Work delivered in required area | Yes | Project plan and postcode list | Pass |
| Request within the allowed range | Yes | Draft budget | Pass |
| Project can start after decision | Unclear | Delivery plan conflicts with timetable | Ask funder |
Avoid a bare “yes”. Record the document, page or source sentence that supports it. This makes review easier and prevents the same question being re-researched later.
Use three outcomes:
- Eligible: every mandatory rule has evidence.
- Ineligible: at least one mandatory rule clearly fails.
- Unclear: the source is ambiguous or you do not yet have the evidence.
“Unclear” should create a named next action, such as asking the funder or getting a document from finance. It should not quietly turn into “probably eligible”.
Then test fit and capacity
Eligibility only gets you through the door. Before committing, ask:
- Does the project directly advance the programme's priorities?
- Can you explain the need with evidence you already hold or can collect responsibly?
- Is the budget realistic, including staff time and overheads?
- Can your team deliver, measure and report within the award period?
- Is the potential award worth the application and reporting effort?
This second check is a judgement, not a rule. Keep it separate from eligibility so enthusiasm does not blur a hard exclusion.
Make the decision reviewable
Give one person ownership, set a date for unresolved questions, and have someone other than the original researcher review high-value applications. Keep the source links with the decision.
Membrs is designed around this discipline: its eligibility view links reasoning back to published criteria and uses a confidence gate rather than presenting a guarantee. You can also follow the in-product guide to understanding eligibility checks. If the hard rules are clear but the funder's wording is difficult to interpret, continue with our guide to reading eligibility criteria.
The useful outcome is not “apply to everything”. It is a smaller, defensible list of opportunities your charity can pursue with confidence.