Tom Hunter

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. Children in Need2 grants · FY2024–FY2025 ·statutory$3.3M
2. Young Persons Leadership Academy2 grants · FY2024–FY2025 ·statutory$823K
3. Kiltwalk2 grants · FY2024–FY2025 ·statutory$788K
4. Street Soccer1 grant · FY2025 ·statutory$702K
5. Youth Endowment Fund1 grant · FY2025 ·statutory$439K
6. Head Teacher Leadership Academy2 grants · FY2024–FY2025 ·statutory$246K
7. Social Innovation Partnership2 grants · FY2024–FY2025 ·statutory$212K
8. Scale Up Scotland2 grants · FY2024–FY2025 ·statutory$177K

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 recipient89% of $8,215,36127/30
• Statutory filings carry recipient detail89% of $8,215,361 filed13/15
• Most recent evidenceFY202515/15

Scottish recipient detail here is extracted from annual reports and accounts filed with OSCR; the register's headline expenditure is not treated as grants.

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

• 2025-03-3111 named recipients · 1 aggregate rowThe Hunter Foundation · note "6. GRANTS PAYABLE - GROUP - continued" · GBPfiled accountsrecipients namedread from scan
• 2024-03-319 named recipients · 1 aggregate rowThe Hunter Foundation · note "6. GRANTS PAYABLE - GROUP - continued" · GBPfiled accountsrecipients namedread from scan

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

• The Hunter Foundationcharity confirmed / OSCROSCR SC027532 · founder and trustee

Provenance