The Michael Marsh Charitable Trust
Charity 220473
Overview
Summary
The Michael Marsh Charitable Trust appears to operate as a flexible, trustee-led grantmaker with a preference for strengthening smaller, locally based charities through project funding. Its broad charitable objects give it wide discretion, while its stated priorities concentrate attention on people facing age-, disability-, poverty- and education-related disadvantage. The Trust’s willingness to make conditional pledges suggests it may play a catalytic role in helping organisations assemble wider project funding, rather than acting primarily as a long-term operating-cost funder.
Operational geography
Evidence and reasoning
Supporting evidence
Nechells
Confidence: high
Direct evidence shows that the Trust awarded free@last a £20,000 grant in the year ended 5 April 2025. free@last states that it operates a purpose-built centre in Nechells and delivers activities and support for children, young people, families and the wider Nechells community. This is evidence of the Trust's operational reach through grant funding rather than a Trust-operated service or site.
- The Michael Marsh Charitable Trust, unaudited accounts for the year ended 5 April 2025
The grant schedule records a £20,000 award to Free@Last under children and young people. - free@last official website, 'Who we are' and contact information
free@last says its purpose-built centre is in Nechells and that it works directly with children, young adults, families and the wider community there.
Remaining uncertainties
- The Trust is a grant-maker, not a direct service provider: the evidence does not identify any Birmingham service delivered or physical site operated by the Trust itself.
- The £20,000 Free@Last award demonstrates a funded relationship, but the Trust's accounts do not specify the precise project funded, delivery dates or the proportion of the award spent in Nechells.
- The Trust's grant-making policy covers Birmingham alongside Staffordshire, Worcestershire, Warwickshire, Coventry, Wolverhampton and Black Country towns. This supports a regional operational identity, but does not establish active funding in every Birmingham ward.
- The registered address in Alfrick, Worcestershire appears to be a correspondence address and should not be treated as an operational site.
Additional evidence needed
- A current grant list or grant-monitoring information identifying funded projects, delivery locations and dates within Birmingham.
- Confirmation from the Trust or funded organisations of whether the 2025 Free@Last grant has been paid and what activity it supports.
- Evidence of any Birmingham premises used by the Trust for grant administration, trustee meetings or public-facing activity, if any.
Areas of work
- Disability
- Education/training
- General Charitable Purposes
- Religious Activities
- The Prevention Or Relief Of Poverty
Who they help
- Children/young People
- Elderly/old People
- People With Disabilities
- The General Public/mankind
How they help
- Makes Grants To Organisations
Discoveries involving this organisation
The Atlas has not published any Discoveries involving this organisation yet.
Observations
A locally oriented project funder
The Trust appears to favour discrete, locally rooted projects over general organisational support. This may position it as a funder of tangible improvements or time-limited initiatives rather than core infrastructure.
Why it matters
This helps distinguish the Trust’s likely role in local civic life: it may be most relevant to organisations with a defined project, clear costs and a local connection, while being less accessible for charities seeking unrestricted support.
Show evidence
“Trustees favour grants to specific projects for locally based smaller charities.”
Source:Organisation“Generally applications for running costs will not be considered.”
Source:Organisation
Potentially catalytic rather than sole-funding
Its willingness to pledge grants subject to other funding being secured suggests the Trust may help charities unlock broader support, but may also favour projects already capable of attracting multiple funders.
Why it matters
This identifies a possible relationship pattern: the Trust may be most valuable alongside other funders, though conditionality could be harder for smaller groups with limited fundraising capacity.
Show evidence
“Trustees will consider pledging a grant, subject to remaining project funding found by the charity.”
Source:Organisation“Trustees favour grants to specific projects for locally based smaller charities.”
Source:Organisation
Broad discretion with recurring social priorities
The Trust’s formal objects are highly open-ended, but its activity statement indicates a recurring practical focus on age, disability, poverty, education and young people. Religious activity may be eligible within this wider discretionary remit, but its practical priority is unclear.
Why it matters
This suggests that eligibility may be broader than the Trust’s apparent funding pattern. Applicants and local partners would benefit from understanding how trustees translate broad discretion into decisions.
Show evidence
“Such charitable institutions and for such charitable purposes as the trustees shall determine.”
Source:Charity Commission“Grants are broadly divided between charities helping old people children disabled the poor and educationally needy.”
Source:Organisation“What the charity does includes religious activities.”
Source:Charity Commission
- The Trust’s geographic area of interest is not specified.
- Grant sizes, annual grant volume, funded organisations and decision timescales are unknown.
- It is unclear whether religious activity receives active funding or is only within the charity’s registered purposes.
Remaining uncertainties
- Recent grant lists showing recipients, locations, grant amounts and project themes.
- Application guidance or annual reports explaining eligibility, assessment criteria and funding priorities.
Additional evidence needed
Charity Commission profile
Activities
Grants are broadly divided between charities helping old people children disabled the poor and educationally needy.Trustees favour grants to specific projects for locally based smaller charities but will also consider larger projects.Trustees will consider pledging a grant, subject to remaining project funding found by the charity.Generally applications for running costs will not be considered.
Charity objects
SUCH CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS AND FOR SUCH CHARITABLE PURPOSES AS THE TRUSTEES SHALL DETERMINE.