Why some UK charities win grants 28% bigger than the sector average

Across the UK charity sector, the average single grant award is around £80,000. Inside Localgiving's nationwide community, the average is £103,000. That is a 28% difference. Yes, 28%. This is not a rounding error. Nor a small charity vs big charity story. It holds across all our income bands.

So, what is it that the charities winning bigger grants doing differently?

1. They apply to the right funders, not the same ones

The single biggest mistake in UK grant fundraising is applying to the funders you have already won from, or the funders everyone else applies to (the National Lottery Community Fund, BBC Children in Need, the usual suspects). These funders are oversubscribed. Average win rates are 10–15%.

The bigger-grant winners use grant search tools that surface funders who fund charities like them — same income band, same sector, same geography — and who have award sizes that match what the project needs. Our community members run an average of 22 funder searches in their first month on the platform and end up applying to funders they have little knowledge or connection with.

2. They write to the funder's brief, not a generic template

Most grant applications fail at the same hurdle: the applicant treats the form like a questionnaire. The bigger-grant winners treat it like a sales document. They read the funder's published priorities, their last 10 awards, their evaluation criteria, and write specifically to those.

The bid writer in our AI toolkit does this automatically. It pulls the funder's guidance, scans their recent awards, and shapes your draft to match. The result is an application that reads like it was written for that funder — because it was.

3. They ask for the right amount

Charities consistently under-ask. We see applications for £4,000 that should have been £15,000. Funders interpret a small ask as either a lack of ambition or a lack of understanding of what their project costs. They prefer a confident, justified £15,000 ask over a hesitant £4,000 ask.

The platform shows you what comparable charities have asked for and won. You calibrate your ask against real data, not against what you think 'sounds reasonable'.

---> Try Localgiving free for 14 days. Cancel anytime. 

4. They submit more, but more selectively

The data is counter-intuitive. The bigger-grant winners do not apply to fewer grants — they apply to more. But they only apply where the AI confirms strong fit (matching income band, sector, geography). Quality filtering at the search stage means a higher win rate per application, even at higher volume.

5. They reuse winning content

Every successful application has reusable parts: the impact stats, the beneficiary stories, the staffing structure, the project rationale. The bigger-grant winners maintain a content library. We build that library automatically as you draft.

Can your charity win 28% bigger?

If your charity has won at least one grant before — yes, almost certainly. The pattern across our customer base is consistent: charities with prior grant experience who switch to AI-assisted matching and drafting see grant size lift within their first three applications. 84% of Localgiving customers are in this group.

To take advantage of our Grant Success Tier - for organisations that require a consistent grant funding pipeline as well as an effective donation platform. 

---> Try Localgiving free for 14 days. Cancel anytime. See your matched funders before you commit.

 You may also be interested in: 

• We searched 200+ UK funders for your charity, so you don’t have to.
• Why fundraisers are switching from ChatGPT to Localgiving
• Monthly payments are now live on Localgiving; here’s why it matters for small charities and CICs

Localgiving is a leading online fundraising platform and grant delivery partner, focused on supporting small charities, CICs and community organisations. Since 2010, we've helped thousands of groups across the UK raise tens of millions of pounds and make a meaningful impact in their local communities.