Guidance

Better Futures Fund: Delivery Partner Round 1: Clarification questions

Updated 15 May 2026

Applies to England

1. How do I stay updated on the BFF?

Currently, the best way to keep updated on the fund’s development and activities is through the Better Futures Fund (BFF) webpage, and there’s a link on this page where you can sign up to receive notifications when this is updated. 

2. How do I apply for funding from Round 1 of the BFF as a Social Outcome Partnership or an organisation who is part of a SOP?

Round 1 of the BFF is not currently open for funding applications for SOPs. DCMS is running a competition to select a grant recipient to deliver the first round of the BFF. Further information on Round 1 and how to apply for funding will be available later this Summer. 

Round 1 is expected to invite bids in Summer 2026, supporting projects with demonstrable prior experience in delivering a SOP. Further details on applying for Round 1 will be released this summer once a delivery partner has been appointed. 

Our expectation is that there will also be further funding rounds on a rolling basis from 2027. These will be open to all applicants, whether or not they have experience of SOP delivery. We know that it takes time to set up SOPs and this will be reflected in the design and management of the fund.

3. Are there any opportunities to network or build relationships with other organisations who might be interested in partnering on a SOP?

Unfortunately, we do not currently have any networking opportunities available for projects. Currently, the best way to keep updated on the fund’s development and activities is through the BFF webpage, and there’s a link on this page where you can sign up to receive notifications when this is updated. 

4. How will priority areas of England for delivery be identified for the BFF Round 1?

Once chosen, the delivery partner for Round 1 will be responsible for determining how best to deliver Round 1. We are unable to predetermine the exact delivery approach. 

The Better Futures Fund will focus on a place-based approach that empowers local and regional government and supports those areas most in need. Further detail on criteria and place based funding requirements will be available in the summer, once a delivery partner for Round 1 has been appointed. 

5. How will SOPs be defined for Round 1? What will count as prior experience delivering a SOP?

Round 1 is expected to invite bids in Summer 2026, supporting projects with demonstrable prior experience in delivering a SOP. Further details on applying for Round 1 will be released this summer once a delivery partner has been appointed. 

6. Is there any flexibility with respect to both:

a. the split between RDEL admin and overall RDEL

b. the admin split across financial years

Applicants should set out a detailed budget breakdown and cash flow for Question 31 of the application form. Where this differs substantially from the funding profile illustrated in the Competition Guidance, applicants are encouraged to clearly outline the rationale for this.

DCMS expects the chosen delivery partner to maintain accurate forecasting reporting to DCMS on a quarterly basis. We understand that profiling outcomes for Social Outcomes Partnerships can be unpredictable, and would expect forecasted underspend or overspend pressures to be communicated promptly to DCMS to inform discussions on reasonable reallocation of outcomes spending. DCMS expects annually allocated funds awarded for admin spend to be spent by 31 March each financial year, and any unspent funds cannot be carried forward into future years. 

7. Can the organisation appointed as the BFF Round 1 delivery partner, i.e. the grant recipient and distributor of funds, also be a recipient of the grant funding, for example, by receiving funding to deliver Social Outcomes Partnerships within the programme? If so, under what conditions would this be permissible?

It is likely that an organisation appointed as both delivery partner and funding applicant would raise concerns relating to conflicts of interest and fraud. If an applicant intended to apply for funding from a fund they also intended to be the delivery partner of, their application would have to clearly demonstrate how they would implement and maintain a strict counterfraud process fully minimising conflicts of interest.

8. Can the organisation appointed as the BFF Round 1 delivery partner be involved in the future in any way in the design, performance management and/or delivery of the social outcomes partnerships supported by the Better Futures Fund?

Please see the answer to Question 7. 

9. Following contract award, currently anticipated on 24 July 2026, what are DCMS’s expectations regarding mobilisation and timing of the first-stage application process for SOP projects, e.g. indicative launch window and lead-in time?

Please see the Competition Guidance. We would expect a delivery partner to follow the proposed timetable:

• July 2026 - Launch application process
• September - December 2026 - Assessing applications and awarding grants
• December 2026 - February 2036 - Project Monitoring

10. Can DCMS confirm whether the full £39.8 million funding envelope for Round 1 is approved at the outset, or whether funding beyond the initial allocation of £8.45 million for the first three years is subject to further approvals, or contingent on future decisions?

We are committed to a 10-year funding lifecycle, ensuring funding is accessible for the duration of the programme.

11. Does this mean that the Better Futures Fund is now an £8.45 million initiative rather than a £500 million one?

No, the Competition Guidance is seeking to select a delivery partner for Round 1 only. The total grant funding available to the grant recipient(s) is £39.8 million revenue (including administrative costs) over the ten year financial period between 2026 to 2036.  

12. How, and when, will the scheme’s Tranche 1 effectiveness be measured? What parameters will be taken into consideration to decide whether it has been effective or not? Who will decide whether it has been effective or not?

The funding for tranches 2 and 3 will be made available subject to a review of the scheme’s effectiveness to that point. The date of this review is to be determined. Parameters will be based upon the successful proposal DCMS invest in.

13. When will a decision be made on whether the funding of Tranches 2 and 3 is made available or not?

Please see answer to Question 12.

14. Given that funding for Tranches 2 and 3 is subject to review and not guaranteed, how does DCMS expect the delivery partner to manage and mitigate the risk of future funding uncertainty, particularly in relation to making long-term funding commitments to SOP projects?

All funding for Round 1 must be committed by December 2026. Due to the nature of outcomes-based commissioning, funding commitments will not be spent until outcomes are achieved (within the relevant Tranche of funding), with payment claims to DCMS expected to mirror outcomes claims achieved by projects. 

15. In this sentence: “All annually allocated funds awarded must be spent by 31 March each financial year, and any unspent funds cannot be carried forward into future years.” – Do the annually allocated fund caps also apply to the “Outcomes”?

DCMS expects the chosen delivery partner to maintain accurate forecasting reporting to DCMS on a quarterly basis. We understand that profiling outcomes for Social Outcomes Partnerships can be unpredictable, and would expect forecasted underspend or overspend pressures to be communicated promptly to DCMS to inform discussions on reasonable reallocation of outcomes spending. DCMS expects annually allocated funds awarded for admin spend to be spent by 31 March each financial year, and any unspent funds cannot be carried forward into future years. 

16. What will happen if the annually allocated Outcomes amounts are not fully drawn down by the end of a financial year? Will the funds that haven’t been drawn down, that year, not be able to be spent in future years?

Please see the answer to Question 15. 

17. If outcomes achieved in a given financial year exceed the available budget, is there any flexibility for the delivery partner to manage this across years, for example through reprofiling or front-loading funding from future allocations?

Please see the answer to Question 15. 

18. We understand that some Combined Authorities may receive separate BFF allocations for onward distribution. Can DCMS confirm how these arrangements will interact with the Round 1 delivery partner role, e.g. whether they will fall within the delivery partner’s processes and oversight, or operate as separate funding routes outside of the delivery partner’s application and commissioning framework?

We are currently in the design phase for future rounds, exploring the most effective delivery models for the fund. Our focus is a place-based approach that empowers local and regional government and supports those areas most in need. 

19. We understand that “an overarching set of outcomes” will be provided. When will this overcharging set of outcomes be shared? Will the selected delivery partner finalise the overarching set of outcomes, or will that be done by DCMS? What level of detail will be included in this set of outcomes (outcome categories, outcome definitions, outcome values)?

The outcomes the fund will look to deliver are currently being determined. The specific metrics will be decided in local places, aligned to local needs, but will be guided by an overarching set of outcomes that align with evidence on tackling child poverty. 

20. There might be social outcomes partnerships that measure population-level outcomes rather than individual participant outcomes (i.e.: improvements in Good Level of Development after Reception Year in school at a London Borough level). Will population-level outcomes be supported by the Better Futures Fund in addition to individual participant outcomes?

Please see the answer to Question 19.

21. Do organisations need to be a UK-registered charity or incorporated charitable entity to be eligible to apply and receive a grant under Section 70 of the Charities Act 2006?

If not a charity (as defined in section 1 of the Charities Act 2011), an institution may also receive funding under Section 70 of the Charities Act 2006 if it is established for charitable, benevolent or philanthropic purposes. Applicants will need to demonstrate that they are an institution that was established for such purposes rather than the creation of a dividend (i.e. a profit paid to shareholders). It is also important that applicants prove they were established for charitable, benevolent or philanthropic purposes and do not simply have those purposes currently.

Applicants can do this by presenting information supported by evidence, such as the below examples:

• The institution’s constitutional documents.
• A list of any other purposes of the institution and how prevalent they are.
• A confirmation whether the institution seeks to make a profit and, if so, what it does with any such profit.

An applicant will need to prove its institution’s established purpose, pass the due diligence and meet the eligibility criteria listed in the application form and specification document for their application to be assessed.

22. Can you confirm whether you can accept applications that include reservations about the proposed grant terms, so they can meet UN institutional requirements? And whether DCMS would be open to discussing appropriate adjustments to the grant agreement?

Any proposed amendments to the published terms and conditions should be included in as an addendum to your application, setting out the required variation to the terms, the reason for those variations and any alternative assurances which could be offered in lieu of those standard requirements. 

Any decision to amend the standard grant terms and conditions is at DCMS’ absolute discretion.

23. It would also be helpful to understand what level of detail DCMS would expect at application stage - e.g. whether a full list of specific reservations would need to be submitted with the application, or whether it would be sufficient to flag the key areas and then discuss the detailed drafting after selection.

Please see the answer to Question 22.