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.
The Kreitman Foundation engages with a range of communities through the programmes it funds, with recent specific focus on the rights of children and young people. 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.
We are guided by a number of grant-making principles. These take the form of questions, some of which are below.
To what extent:
…do we focus on root causes over symptom alleviation and how does our size impact this thinking?
...does our budget restrict our approach? 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? 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?
…do we feel a grantee's focus might be on obtaining funds for their own survival, rather than their core aim? How might what (and how) we give help affect this positively?