At Diversityworks Trust we take a wider view of "creativity" than just arts and culture. For example we are interested in how creativity can be used for benefit across several sectors, including the arts, education, business and social/community sectors, and our work at any given time may span more than one. Our issue is that funding streams are usually so narrow that any hint of a project crossing streams is seen by funders as a reason to say no, because it doesn't fit one particular stream's criteria.

Another issue is the all-or-nothing approach to funding application processes. I like the Todd Foundation's process where they ask for an initial one-page expression of interest. They then come back to you and ask you to submit a full application, if they think your project fits their criteria, focus, priorities, etc at the time. This saves endless hours of needless effort on applications that may fall completely outside a funder's current gaze, for whatever reason.

A final issue, linked to the former, is the "lottery-style" approach to funding that exists, ie. you put in an app, sit back and wait for the draw and if you're lucky, your number comes up and you get your prize. Ok, slightly exaggerated but for organisational sustainability, having no idea what the outcome of an app will be over the 6-12 week period between the submission and result is virtually untenable. I think a dialogue-based, partnership approach to funding needs to evolve, where decisions are negotiated by both parties rather than made solely by the funder. Slightly more effort required by all, but I think such an approach would improve effectiveness and productivity in the long run. It may even be fun!

If you're not laughing yet, perhaps this is only required when there is doubt over an application's likelihood to be funded. So, for example, if an application of $50k is doubtful, maybe it's then that an approach is made to the applicant to see what the options may be. Sometimes a lesser amount for a lesser outcome may be appropriate and sometimes the best option may be to can a project altogether.

Making these difficult decisions in dialogue make them more easily swallowed by a funding seeker than a definitive No from a funder.

My sense is, too, that there may be some interesting solutions that may emerge from these conversations - for example, a funding adviser may see an opportunity and broker a partnership for collaboration between two organisations who may be unaware of each other.