Denise Coates

The four-line truth

Lines are separate lifecycle measures and are never summed: committed = donor-published award/approved-commitment flows or signed recipient-confirmed commitments within the displayed source coverage period, including exact named commitments, plus reviewed current forward-portfolio aggregates that are never accumulated across source snapshots; awaiting = latest-FY statutory 'approved for future payment' or audited future-support-obligation balance; deployed = disclosed paid amounts, split into statutory, recipient-confirmed, and donor-reported evidence; in vehicles = transfers to controlled vehicles, DAFs, recipient foundations, or unresolved associated vehicles pending onward evidence (withheld-amount gifts counted separately). Absence of events is absence of loaded evidence, not zero giving.

Top recipients

1. University Hospitals of North Midlands1 grant · FY2025 ·statutory$8.5M
2. Chronic Disease Research Foundation1 grant · FY2024 ·statutory$5.3M
3. Douglas Macmillan Hospice2 grants · FY2024–FY2025 ·statutory$5.0M
4. Stonyhurst College1 grant · FY2025 ·statutory$4.9M
5. Stonyhurst Foundation2 grants · FY2024–FY2025 ·statutory$2.9M
6. New Vic Theatre2 grants · FY2024–FY2025 ·statutory$2.5M
7. The Land Trust1 grant · FY2024 ·statutory$891K
8. Cancer Research UK1 grant · FY2025 ·statutory$781K

Largest recipients across loaded paid line-item records; recipient names as filed (entity resolution pending). Aggregate-basis sources carry no recipient detail.

Transparency

• Publishes an open grants databaseno donor-published database loaded0/40
• Capital traceable to a named recipient40% of $81,470,88112/30
• Statutory filings carry recipient detail40% of $81,470,881 filed6/15
• Most recent evidenceFY202515/15

England & Wales charities may withhold recipient names on materiality or serious prejudice grounds, and a charitable trust may withhold recipients and amounts entirely while the settlor lives (Charities Act 2011 s.132(4)).

Voluntary points reward disclosure the donor chose — publishing an open grants database, and naming recipients. Compelled points reflect how completely and how currently their statutory filings land. The split exists because disclosure regimes differ by jurisdiction: a high compelled score is law-abiding, not generous, and a low one may reflect a rule the donor did not write.

What the filed accounts actually disclosed

• 2025-03-307 named recipients · 1 aggregate rowDenise Coates Foundation · note "3 RESOURCES EXPENDED: UNRESTRICTED 2025 AND 2024 (CONTINUED) — Recipients of institutional grant(s):" · GBPfiled accountsrecipients namedread from scan · review flagged
• 2024-03-317 named recipients · 1 aggregate rowDenise Coates Foundation · note "3 RESOURCES EXPENDED: UNRESTRICTED 2024 AND 2023 (CONTINUED) / "Recipients of institutional grant(s):"" · GBPfiled accountsrecipients namedread from scan · review flagged
• 2023-03-26no named recipients · 5 aggregate rowsDenise Coates Foundation · note "RESOURCES EXPENDED: UNRESTRICTED 2023 AND 2022" · GBPfiled accountsaggregate onlytext layer · review flagged
• 2022-03-27no named recipientsDenise Coates Foundation · note "RESOURCES EXPENDED: UNRESTRICTED 2022 AND 2021" · GBPfiled accountsaggregate onlytext layer · review flagged
• 2021-03-28no named recipientsDenise Coates Foundation · note "RESOURCES EXPENDED: UNRESTRICTED 2021 AND 2020" · GBPfiled accountsaggregate onlytext layer · review flagged

Extracted from charity accounts filed with CCEW or OSCR and independently re-read; every note reconciles (named + aggregate = the printed total). A note with no named recipients is a disclosure outcome, not an absence of giving: SORP Module 16 lets a charity withhold names on immateriality or serious prejudice, and Charities Act 2011 s.132(4) lets an England & Wales charitable trustwithhold recipients and amounts entirely while the settlor is alive.

Vehicles · 1 regulator- or Wikidata-linked

• Denise Coates Foundationcharity confirmed / CCEWCCEW 1149110 · founder

Provenance