The Kreitman Foundation engages with a range of communities through the programmes it funds. We believe that safeguarding should be at the heart of how organisations think and so we are committed to ensuring that our partners take appropriate steps to prevent abuse and promote the safety, protection, wellbeing and development not only of children and other groups traditionally considered vulnerable or at risk but of all groups.
Practically, this means assessing the safeguarding strength of any potential partner, which may involve running through a set of questions and criteria or our self-audit tool. This degree of analysis will deepen relative to the perceived vulnerability of the organisation’s beneficiaries, that which is being funded and any other circumstances that may increase risk.
When assessing an application for a grant from the Foundation we will:
• carry out proper due diligence;
• assess whether appropriate safeguarding procedures and policies are in place; and
• ensure grant conditions are drawn up in writing to help govern our relationships with our grantees
Where we make a grant to an organisation outside the jurisdictions of the United Kingdom, we will follow these same practices and comply with any additional requirements of the other country.
The Foundation does not work directly with children or adults at risk. However, trustees may attend meetings or events with children or adults at risk as part of their professional duties. These will take place in the presence of suitably qualified staff from an organisation with appropriate safeguarding policies in place.
Trustees are briefed on this policy on an annual basis and receive appropriate training on safeguarding relevant to their duties.
We seek only to work with organisations that do not discriminate, in policy or in practice, on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion or belief, gender, gender reassignment, age, disability, marriage or civil partnership, pregnancy or maternity, sex or sexual orientation.
We are guided by a number of grant-making principles. These take the form of questions, some of which are below.
To what extent:
…does a potential project reflect our strategy (root cause vs symptom alleviation)?
... does the project fit with our size and budget? Is there a responsibility for small foundations to fund less established, more innovative programmes where risk of failure/reward may be higher, rather than larger, established organisations or directly targeting issues at a macro level?
…should funders consider core funding over programme-specific grants? Do funders generally lean towards the latter and if so why?
…,if we express an interest in making a restricted grant, might a grantee feel comfortable giving their honest thoughts about how they think the funding should really be applied?
…can such open discussions exist and how might they be encouraged?
…should we take a longer-term outlook than is traditionally adopted on what we fund and why?