TABLE 1.

Ten approaches for ensuring conservation grant applicants reflect on evidence

Approach	Description	Example of adopting organizations
Application form contains a question about evidence	A section in the application form asks about evidence for the effectiveness of any proposed conservation actions. This is a straightforward and effective approach. However, it may be seen as too bureaucratic, time‐consuming, or challenging. It may also not be appropriate if most applications do not involve conservation actions or if decision‐making takes place at a different stage of project development.	The Whitley Fund for Nature, People's Trust for Endangered Species, Birdlife International, John Spedan Lewis Foundation, North of England Zoological Society, The National Trust, Bat Conservation International, Woodland Trust, Mohamed bin Zayed Species Conservation Fund, The Rufford Foundation, and WCS Climate Adaptation Fund
Applicants asked to describe their evidence use somewhere in the proposal	This approach is less formal than having a specific question about evidence in the form. Perhaps more appropriate for smaller grants or applicants less used to applying for funding.	People's Trust for Endangered Species, Amphibian Survival Alliance, and Future for Nature Foundation
Second application stage asks about evidence	Some funders have an initial short application form, followed by a second stage, in which a subset of applicants provide further details. Funders can ask for evidence of effectiveness of proposed actions in the second stage, where relevant. This can reduce workload in the first stage and permits a general application process for a wide range of projects, with only practical conservation proposals required to provide evidence in the second stage.	Endangered Landscapes Programme
Applicants are asked to justify assumptions underpinning their theory of change	Many applications request a theory of change elucidating how the proposed actions are likely to result in the desired outcomes. Funders can ask for the evidence base for the assumptions underlying the theory of change.	Endangered Landscapes Programme
Grantees are asked to describe evidence use as part of reporting	The grant application and contract state the expectation that decision‐making processes will be evidence based. Grantees’ reports to the funder then describe how evidence was used in decision‐making and why key actions were chosen. This is appropriate where key decisions are made during the project, rather than before submitting the application.
Funders check evidence themselves	If assessing evidence is considered too onerous or off‐putting for applicants, funders can themselves check the evidence for proposed actions during the selection process.	Future for Nature Foundation and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service International Affairs
Evidence is considered during project codevelopment	Some funders may not use a straightforward application process but instead codesign projects with potential grantees. The funder may then identify the evidence and discuss how to use this in project planning with potential grantees.	On the EDGE Conservation
Process for using evidence is described	Applicants are asked to describe the process by which relevant evidence will be identified and considered during their project. This may be appropriate for complicated projects requiring numerous decisions or sets of projects (or even an organization) that are funded before details of activities to be undertaken are known.
Evidence use is clearly stated in selection criteria	A transparent criterion makes it clear that only proposals that use evidence‐based decision‐making will be considered for funding.	Woodland Trust and WCS Climate Adaptation Fund
Monitoring and enhancing index of evidence use	Funders monitor the level of evidence use (e.g., percentage of projects or funding supported by evidence) and set targets for annual improvement.	U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service International Affairs