What Funders Want to See Before They Back a Project

What do funders actually want to see?

If you have ever written a funding application, you have probably spent a great deal of time trying to explain why your idea is innovative. Novelty certainly matters, but it is rarely the question sitting underneath all the others. What funders are really trying to judge is whether there is good reason to believe that the project will succeed.

Success, of course, means different things in different contexts, but one issue appears remarkably consistently across funding calls: will the people the project is intended to benefit actually use what is developed? A technically excellent solution has little value if it is never adopted. Increasingly, funders are looking for evidence that projects have been designed around genuine needs rather than assumptions.

This is one of the reasons community engagement has become such an important part of research and innovation. Meaningful engagement does much more than demonstrate that communities have been consulted. It provides evidence that the project has been informed by the people who will ultimately determine whether it succeeds.

Why evidence of engagement matters

If you read enough funding applications, you start to notice a pattern. Many describe the proposed technology, intervention or research in considerable detail but say very little about the people who are expected to use it. The assumption seems to be that, if the idea is good enough, adoption will naturally follow.

Unfortunately, experience tells us that this is rarely the case.

Funders know this too. They have seen excellent projects fail because they solved the wrong problem, overlooked local priorities, or assumed that users would simply adapt their behaviour once a new product or service became available. As a result, many funders now place much greater emphasis on understanding users before solutions are designed.

This is the thinking that underpins The 80:20 Pathway. Rather than beginning with a proposed solution, we encourage organisations to begin by listening. Our approach is based on spending considerably more time understanding communities, end users and partners before deciding what should be developed. We refer to this as the 80:20 ratio: listening roughly 80% of the time and talking 20%. The exact proportion is less important than the principle. Projects grounded in listening tend to make better decisions because they are responding to evidence rather than assumptions.

A changing funding landscape

Funding is becoming more competitive, and funders are under growing pressure to demonstrate value for money. Recent discussion within the UK research sector has highlighted rapidly increasing demand for grants, driven in part by AI-assisted proposal writing, and the growing pressure this places on existing funding systems.

At the same time, many funders are facing tighter budgets. In the international development sector, reductions in Official Development Assistance have increased pressure to invest in projects that are more likely to achieve lasting impact (see the UK Government’s Statistics on International Development).

This changing environment means that evidence of likely adoption has become just as important as evidence that a project can be delivered.

The UN Sustainable Development Goals Report 2026 makes a similar point. Rather than arguing that the world simply needs more innovation, it suggests that many effective solutions already exist but fail to achieve impact because implementation, financing and partnerships are insufficient to scale them. In other words, the challenge is often not generating new ideas but ensuring that good ideas are actually adopted.

What does good evidence look like?

The encouraging news is that much of the evidence funders are looking for is generated naturally through good community engagement. It does not require a separate exercise carried out just before an application is submitted. Instead, it emerges from documenting conversations, decisions and learning throughout the development of a project.

Some of the most useful evidence includes:

• evidence of who has been involved in shaping the project and how their views influenced key decisions.
• examples of changes made to the design in response to feedback from intended users.
• early signs that people are willing to use, recommend or continue engaging with the proposed solution.
• qualitative accounts that explain the problem from the perspective of the communities themselves.
• honest reflections on approaches that did not work as expected and how the project adapted in response.

None of these needs involve large numbers. A small amount of well-documented evidence showing that listening influenced the direction of a project is often more persuasive than extensive claims that cannot demonstrate where the ideas originated.

What raises concerns?

The opposite is also true.

Applications often describe large numbers of workshops, participants or training sessions, confusing attendance with engagement, but provide little indication that these activities resulted in any meaningful change. Outputs are carefully recorded, but there is very little evidence that people subsequently behaved differently, adopted the innovation, or continued using it beyond the life of the project.

Similarly, applications sometimes describe communities only in general terms, making it difficult to see whether the project team has actually engaged with the people concerned or is relying on assumptions about what they need.

Experienced assessors are usually very good at recognising the difference. They are not necessarily looking for perfect projects; they are looking for credible ones. An application that explains what has been learned, acknowledges where assumptions proved incorrect and demonstrates how community engagement influenced decisions often inspires greater confidence than one presenting an apparently flawless but untested plan.

Looking ahead

Community engagement should never be treated simply as something that strengthens a funding application. Done well, it leads to better projects because it improves understanding, reduces unnecessary risks and increases the likelihood that innovations will be adopted in practice.

The evidence generated through that process also happens to answer one of the most important questions funders ask: why should we believe this project will work?

Increasingly, the strongest answer is not that the idea is innovative. It is that the people it is intended to benefit have already helped shape it.

Frequently asked questions

What kind of evidence do funders find most convincing?

Funders are generally looking for evidence that intended users have influenced the project and are likely to adopt its outputs. This might include documented changes made following community feedback, evidence of early uptake, or qualitative accounts from intended users explaining why the project addresses an important need.

We are still at an early stage. What evidence can we provide?

Early-stage projects can still present strong evidence by showing who they have engaged with, what they have learned and how those conversations have influenced the project’s design. Demonstrating that decisions have been informed by listening is often more persuasive than making unsupported claims about future impact.

Should we avoid discussing things that did not work?

Not necessarily. Most funders understand that projects evolve. Explaining how feedback identified a problem and how the project adapted in response often demonstrates that decisions are being guided by evidence rather than assumptions.

If you would like to discuss how community engagement can strengthen your next funding application, or how to build stronger evidence of future adoption into your project, you can find out more about our consultancy and training at https://the8020pathway.com or get in touch for an informal conversation.