Grant-Writing & Institutional Funding Process
Evaluates the systematic process for securing and managing institutional funds. This reflects *Kafāʾah* (competence) and *Riʿāyah* (stewardship), ensuring resources are acquired ethically and managed effectively to serve the community's *Maṣlaḥah* (public interest) and sustain vital services. Pursuing such funding aligns with *Ḥifẓ al-Māl* (preservation of wealth) by securing sustainable financial streams. Furthermore, upholding *Amānah* (trust) in grant-writing demands absolute truthfulness in proposals and rigorous accountability in reporting, fulfilling the covenant with benefactors.
| Metric | Grant Performance Dashboard |
|---|---|
| Target | Defined per metric |
| Frequency | Quarterly |
| Method | Success rate (%); On-time reporting (%); Restricted-fund compliance incidents (#); Grant ROI; Funding concentration risk |
| Unit | Composite |
Level 1: Initial/Ad-hoc
Ad-hoc & Reactive: Grant-seeking is informal, inconsistent, and dependent on individual effort. There is no documented process, and opportunities are pursued reactively. Basic record-keeping may be absent.
Level 2: Developing
Developing & Defined: A basic, repeatable process for grant writing and submission is emerging and documented. Roles are generally understood but may not be formally assigned. A simple system (e.g., spreadsheet) is used to track opportunities and deadlines.
Level 3: Established
Managed & Proactive: A standardized, documented process covers the entire grant lifecycle (prospecting, application, award mobilisation, reporting, closeout). Roles are defined. A proactive strategy aligns funding targets with organizational goals and community *Maṣlaḥah*.
Level 4: Advanced
Data-Driven & Strategic: The process is measured with a dashboard of KPIs (success rates, ROI, compliance). Strong internal controls (conditions register, compliance matrix, reporting calendar, budget vs actual) are in place, reflecting robust *Riʿāyah* (stewardship).
Level 5: Optimizing
Optimizing & Exemplary: The process is continuously improved through systematic review, feedback loops, and benchmarking. The organization demonstrates leadership in ethical fundraising and transparent stewardship (*Amānah*), potentially mentoring other organizations and achieving a state of *Iḥsān* (excellence).
Organisation Types
By Organisation Size
| Size | Applicability | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Micro | exempt | Institutional funding processes and formal bid workflows are disproportionate for micro charities with under £10k income. |
| Small | partial | Applies only if pursuing grants; scaled down to simple trustee approval and basic ethical checks rather than formal DoA workflows. |
| Medium | partial | Requires documented ethical screening and trustee sign-off for bids, but complex DoA workflows and formal Go/No-Go forms can be simplified. |
| Large | full | |
| Major | full |
Applicable When
- The organization actively seeks external funding (grants) for its operations or specific projects.
- The organization is large enough to have dedicated staff or volunteers responsible for fundraising.
- The organization's mission aligns with the funding priorities of potential grant-making organizations (trusts, foundations, statutory bodies).
Not Applicable When
- The organization is primarily funded through other sources (e.g., membership fees, sales of goods/services, individual donations) and does not actively pursue grants.
- The organization is very small and relies solely on volunteer efforts without a structured fundraising approach.
- Mosques, if only relying on community donations and not targeting grants specifically.
Related Criteria
Discussion (1)
📋 **Version updated: 1.0.0 → 2.9.7** **Changes:** Updated islamic_references from mizan-297.json
Sign in to post a comment.