Guidance

Enrichment Expansion Programme: Clarification questions

Published 5 May 2026

Applies to England

For the purposes of this clarification exercise, we can only answer questions that specifically relate to the grant competition for the Enrichment Expansion Programme (EEP) delivery partner.

Questions related to other programmes or policies, including Dormant Assets and the Enrichment Framework, have been excluded. 

DCMS and DfE will support the EEP delivery partner to build knowledge of wider government programmes and policies that complement the work of the EEP.  

Application process and eligible spend

Is the intention that the delivery partner uses the grant funding to increase the provision of enrichment through direct delivery or to help co-ordinate existing local provision and increase school access to what already exists?

The £16,833,400 funding aims to secure an organisation or consortium that will provide tailored coordination support to secondary schools to increase access to enrichment opportunities for their pupils. The primary focus of the grant funding is rooted in enhancing coordination between enrichment offers that are delivered in and out of schools.

As part of the application guidance, we have provided examples of what good practice as a delivery partner might include. This list is not exhaustive, and we expect any grant recipient to design the details of the programme’s activities in order to achieve its objectives effectively.

Is there any information available on what would be eligible under administration costs?

Administration costs are actual sums of money incurred by the recipient for the overall administration of the grant, rather than the direct delivery of the grant. These can include costs related to senior management oversight, costs related to core financial or HR services, apportionment of rent and utilities bills, etc. The successful delivery partner must be able to demonstrate that they have incurred these costs, and provide evidence as to how they apportioned that cost to the scheme. It does not include staff costs related to the delivery of the programme (for example, any coordination staff that may be recruited).

Is there a word limit for questions 3.1, 3.2, 6.6, 6.7, 7.2?

Where there are word limits, these are explicitly stated in the question. Questions without this do not have word limits. 

How does the proposal fit in with previous webinar proposals for national delivery partner and regional delivery partner layers?

At the end of last year we ran a series of stakeholder workshops and sessions on the design of the EEP to help shape the broad parameters for the programme. Feedback from attendees on the proposal we presented has fed into the requirements and expectations of the delivery partner as set out in the competition document. The aims and objectives of the programme remain the same. 

We expect any grant recipient to design the details and delivery of the programme’s activities in order to achieve its objectives effectively. 

Section 8 of the application requires bidders to provide evidence of being an organisation that is either charitable, philanthropic or benevolent in nature. Please could you define exactly what benevolent in nature means in this context and give examples of what sort of organisations might be excluded from this grant?

DCMS is making this grant award under powers granted to us by s70 of the Charities Act 2006. Therefore, we can only award grants to organisations who are charitable, philanthropic or benevolent in nature.

A benevolent organisation is one established for the benefit of a group of people. Their benevolent purpose should be set out in their governing documents. Generally, such organisations are established so that they do not pay dividends to shareholders but rather recycle dividends to support their benevolent purpose. An organisation which simply gives donations to charity (i.e. performs benevolent acts) is not a benevolent organisation for the purpose of the act. Rather ‘benevolence’ should be the core purpose of the organisation and clearly set out in governing documents. 

If we are applying for other government funding, does this preclude us from applying to the EEP? 

Nothing precludes an organisation from bidding for other government funding. However for each government funding pot, a consideration will be made as to whether we believe an organisation has the capacity to deliver their programme, in light of other commitments.

May non-lead partners be named in more than one consortium?

Yes, non-lead partners may be named in more than one consortium. 

Can you clarify that the total budget envelope is £16.8 million, plus a maximum of 6% administration costs.

Yes, the total envelope is £16.8 million, plus a maximum of 6% administration costs.

Are you looking for one partner/ consortium for all the funding or is it possible for multiple partners to deliver in different parts of the country for parts of the funding?

Applicants may apply as a single organisation with or without delivery partners, or submit a joint application (for example, as a consortium, joint venture, unincorporated association, partnership or otherwise). We will not be delivering grant funding to multiple, separate partners. 

How prescriptive do you expect the delivery model to be nationally vs locally designed?

We are aware that there is limited information on the specific areas and schools that the EEP will be targeting. Therefore, we would expect applicants to demonstrate how they may engage with local areas to design and develop their coordination support, with the necessary flexibility to ensure that this can happen in practice when the successful delivery partner is in place. We intend to share information on the targeted areas and schools as soon as possible once the successful bidder is awarded the grant, and there will be sufficient time for them to develop localised plans.

In consortium models, what kinds of complementary expertise do you see as strengthening bids? For example, partners who can bring strong participatory methods and trusted relationships with young people whose voices are often under‑represented.

We have outlined the expected capabilities of a successful delivery partner. We would anticipate that consortium models would be developed to ensure that expected capabilities can be met. 

Is there any intention for DCMS to facilitate partnerships through sharing of contact details of organisations who are happy to do so?

No, DCMS is unable to facilitate partnerships or share contact details. 

Measurement, evaluation and data

How will the success of the programme be measured, including progress towards the Benchmarks and increased access for disadvantaged young people? What are the KPIs?

The delivery partner will work with the evaluation partner to determine how success will be measured.

The objectives progress will be measured against can be found on the grant competition gov.uk page. As part of the competition, applicants are expected to outline their project plan and associated outputs and milestones, including expected KPIs. DCMS will work with the successful delivery partner to further refine these KPIs prior to signing grant agreements.

What data will DCMS and the external evaluation partner expect the delivery partner to provide? Can DCMS clarify expectations regarding pupil‑level data collection, consent, and GDPR compliance, particularly for disadvantaged and SEND learners?

We expect the delivery partner to provide DCMS and the evaluation partner with data from their provision mapping exercise in Year 1 and ongoing monitoring data from schools. The delivery partner will need to take part in evaluation activities such as interviews and workshops and support the evaluation partner to collect and utilise programme data.

Specific data requirements will be discussed in more detail once the delivery and evaluation partner(s) are onboarded. This will include expectations regarding data collection, consent and GDPR compliance through the grant agreement with the successful delivery partner. 

What level of responsibility will the delivery partner have for designing data collection tools and indicators, versus implementing requirements set by the independent evaluation partner? For example, is the delivery partner responsible for designing what the datasets will be, or will the independent evaluation partner prescribe this?

While the independent evaluation partner will lead on the design and development of evaluation, we expect the delivery partner and evaluation partner to work closely together to ensure the evaluation process - including the design of and approach to data collection tools - makes sense in the context of programme delivery. The EEP evaluation is expected to use the approved shared measures from the National Youth Strategy’s (NYS) Shared Outcomes Framework. This will enable an improved understanding of the comparison of impact of different NYS programmes.

What are the expectations around embedding ‘youth voice’ in the development of schools’ enrichment programmes - are there specific expectations around what this looks like? Will the evaluation and delivery partnerships centre youth voice and co-creation as part of good practice? 

DCMS is committed to leading the way in enabling effective youth empowerment. Through our engagement as part of the National Youth Strategy, young people told us that they want their voices not only to be heard, but for action to be taken as a result. They want opportunities to have their say on issues in their communities and be part of funding decisions. 

As part of their application, applicants must be able to clearly explain how they will provide support to schools to meet the outcomes set out for this fund, including supporting schools to involve young people and pupil voice throughout the programme. Specific requirements, including how this will be monitored and evaluated, will be discussed in more detail during mobilisation. 

Will the results of the previous enrichment pilot programme evaluation be published?

The Pilot evaluation will be published in due course, so we are not expecting applicants to include details relating to the Pilot in their submission. Once it is published, we will expect the successful delivery partner to work with us to incorporate any relevant findings into the design of the grant programme. 

Programme design and delivery

How are you defining enrichment? Does it include lunchtime clubs or holiday programmes, activities after 3pm, or activities delivered exclusively during or outside of term time? 

Enrichment in schools encompasses a wide range of activities and experiences which exist beyond the curriculum, either linked directly to the curriculum (co-curricular), or covering skills, knowledge and activities that work in addition to it (extra-curricular).

Enrichment allows young people to explore their interests, try new activities and have fun, alongside developing skills and knowledge which can help set them up for life. Enrichment activities may include civic engagement, arts and culture, nature, outdoor and adventure, sport, and wider life skills (including STEM). It can be delivered inside and outside of the school day (for example lunchtime clubs, timetabled enrichment or drop down days, or after school clubs, weekend activities, and trips), and may take place on or outside school premises. It may be delivered outside of term time, providing it complements the school’s core enrichment offer.

DCMS intends to provide grant funding to a delivery partner to enhance the coordination between the enrichment offers that are delivered both inside and outside of school premises (as well as inside and outside of the school day). 

What activities are expected to be funded from the £16-17 million? Is a digital platform/enrichment ‘shop window’ part of the delivery expectations for EEP?

The grant recipient will design the details of the programme’s activities in order to achieve its objectives effectively. We cannot comment specifically on potential design or delivery approaches, as it is up to the delivery partner to determine how our objectives will be most effectively met. However, the application guidance has provided examples of what good practice as a delivery partner might look like.

How is the EEP procurement and design factoring in learnings from the Enrichment Partnerships Pilots and mitigating against replicating previous design flaws?

The programme’s design has been informed by extensive stakeholder engagement, which was delivered in partnership with the Department for Education. This included engagement with a range of school leaders and representatives from across the enrichment landscape, including organisations who had engaged in the Pilot.

The Pilot evaluation will be published in due course, so we are not expecting applicants to include details relating to the EPP in their submission. Once it is published, we will expect the successful delivery partner to work with us to incorporate any relevant findings into the design of the grant programme.

Is it expected that enrichment activity must take place on school premises, or may suitable community facilities be used?

This grant funding is to enhance the coordination between the vast, and often fragmented, enrichment offers that are delivered both in and out of school premises within areas of greatest need. Activities can therefore be delivered both in and out of school in appropriate facilities. 

Can local community partners be engaged to deliver enrichment activity, provided they hold appropriate qualifications, relevant safeguarding  arrangements are in place, and they can demonstrate suitable experience?

Yes, the purpose of the funding is to enhance coordination between schools and local enrichment offers. 

For the Year 1 audit of provision, is it expected that only school-run enrichment activities are audited and mapped, or should wider community provision also be included?

DCMS would encourage any audit of provision to include enrichment activities that are delivered both inside and outside of school premises. 

Is there an intention to test what bidders think will work in the long-term (as a blueprint for supporting schools to deliver great enrichment opportunities and increase equity of access long-term), with programme sustainability planned in and future scalability and sustainability considered?

In their application, applicants must outline what measures they will put in place to ensure outcomes and outputs remain sustainable once funding has finished, including how they will ensure knowledge sharing to support a potential future rollout.

DCMS programmes beyond March 2029 will be determined through the next Spending Review process.

How will DCMS assess proposals for sustaining enrichment coordination, partnerships and roles beyond March 2029, particularly where activities rely on funded coordination posts?

Applicants must outline what measures they will put in place to ensure outcomes and outputs remain sustainable once funding has finished, including how they will ensure knowledge sharing to support a potential future rollout. The scoring criteria for this section of the application (weighted at 10%) states:

• Applicants must set out the long term benefits that will develop as part of the project, and the measures that will be put in place to ensure outcomes and outputs remain sustainable once funding has finished.
• Assessment question: How confident are you in the applicant’s ability to deliver a project that can encourage and embed sustainability in delivery once the funding has finished?
• We are looking for applicants to:
  • Demonstrate clear, long-term benefits for:
    • Pupils Local enrichment providers
    • Schools
    • Your organisation/consortium
  • Demonstrate how they will ensure outcomes and outputs remain sustainable post-March 2029.

DCMS programmes beyond March 2029 will be determined through the next Spending Review process.

Will there be funding available for organisations looking to become enrichment providers?

DCMS will not be offering a specific funding pot for enrichment providers as part of the EEP. We expect any grant recipient to design the details of the programme’s activities in order to achieve its objectives effectively. 

Is there an expectation that Local Authorities play a formal role (e.g. governance, co‑commissioning, match funding), or is this at the discretion of the delivery partner and local context?

We expect any grant recipient to design the details of the programme’s activities in order to achieve its objectives effectively. As part of the application guidance, we have said that good practice as a delivery partner may include: Connecting cross-sector organisations, including relevant Local Authorities, Holiday Activities and Food (HAF) Programme, cultural or sports sector enrichment opportunities and schools.

This is not a requirement and the list of what good practice might look like is not exhaustive.

When does DCMS expect the Enrichment Framework to be published, and will the successful bidder be given an agreed adaptation period to revise their delivery model once benchmarks are confirmed?

The Enrichment Framework will be published this academic year. 

DCMS will work with the successful delivery partner to incorporate the benchmarks into the design of the grant programme.

DCMS school selection

Can you clarify how you will determine which schools will be eligible for funding to support their enrichment offer?  

DCMS will determine 400 secondary schools eligible for funding to support the development of their enrichment offer, with a focus on reaching disadvantaged young people. The eligible schools will represent a range of geographical contexts, including urban/rural/coastal, and represent a diverse range of students, including those with SEND or on free-school meals (FSM). This funding will support young people aged 11-16 and the programme is aimed at engaging state-funded secondary schools, which also includes special schools and AP settings. 

Will schools be selected or will it be an application process? 

Further information on the school selection and onboarding process will be shared in due course. 

When will DCMS confirm the list, characteristics and geographic distribution of the eligible 400 schools, and will baseline data (e.g. FSM, SEND, Ofsted, enrichment participation) be shared with the successful delivery partner?

DCMS will confirm the school selection list following the successful appointment of the delivery partner. 

Will the list of 400 schools be made available during the bid window to allow organisations to understand how many they can reach?

No, the list of 400 schools will not be made available during the bid window. We expect the delivery partner to have capacity to deliver the programme in all nine English regions. We will favour applications that set out an intention to reach as many of the eligible schools, (selected by DCMS) as possible to drive greater impact. We will give preference to organisations whose project demonstrates better value for money by reaching a higher number of schools with a high quality offer. 

Is the project aimed at state funded schools only? How many state secondary schools are there in the UK? 

Yes, the programme is aimed at engaging state funded secondary schools, which also includes special schools and alternative provision settings. 

You can find out more about school and pupil statistics in England here.

To what extent is the proposed cluster model of 5 to 8 geographically proximate schools fixed, versus adaptable by the delivery partner based on local context and transport considerations?

We intend to select and group schools into clusters of 5-8 according to geographic proximity to better allow effective sharing of resources (for example school space or transport), and easier coordination with local services.  

However,  there is no upper limit to how many schools your project is able to reach provided the project meets the objectives outlined in the guidance. It will be at the delivery partner’s discretion to determine how any schools that may be engaged outside of the 400 eligible will be clustered/grouped.

Is the priority to reach as many schools as possible, or to deliver a higher quality service amongst a smaller number of schools?

DCMS will favour applications that set out an intention to reach as many of the 400 eligible schools as possible to drive greater impact. 

The pursuit of value for money should not be conducted at the expense of quality, and we will give preference to organisations whose project demonstrates better value for money by reaching a higher number of schools with a consistent high quality offer.

The spec states ‘There is no upper limit to how many schools your project is able to reach…’ Does DCMS have a rough number of additional schools they would want supported, beyond the 400 in scope? 

No, it is up to the potential bidders to determine how many additional schools they would want to support beyond the 400 eligible schools, if they choose to do so. 

Are the 400 DCMS‑identified schools required to receive the same level and type of provision as any additional schools engaged by the supplier as part of delivery?

We would expect the successful delivery partner to provide a high-quality offer to as many of the 400 DCMS-identified schools as possible. Bidders are able to go beyond the 400 schools and offer support to additional schools, provided the project meets the objectives outlined in the guidance. However, if any schools are engaged above the 400 eligible, DCMS do not currently plan to provide the same grant to schools to support their capacity to engage with the programme. A delivery partner may choose what level of support they wish to offer any additional schools. We will favour applications that set out an intention to reach as many of the 400 eligible schools as possible. 

Are there any eligibility criteria or constraints that suppliers must apply when selecting and engaging schools beyond the 400 identified by DCMS?

No, however it may be useful to refer to DCMS’ approach to schools selection for the 400 eligible schools to support any considerations of engagement beyond this list:

• DCMS will determine 400 secondary schools eligible for funding to support the development of their enrichment offer, with a focus on reaching disadvantaged young people. The eligible schools will represent a range of geographical contexts, including urban/rural/coastal, and represent a diverse range of students, including those with SEND or on free-school meals (FSM). This funding will support young people aged 11-16.

What requirements, if any, apply to ensure that activity delivered through this commission aligns with the enrichment activity directly funded by DCMS for the 400 identified schools?

The grant funding to 400 schools, identified by DCMS, is to enable schools to fund a dedicated staff member’s time to improve their enrichment offer, for example to support the cost of a Teaching and Learning Responsibility.

DCMS will favour applications that set out an intention to reach as many of the DCMS selected 400 eligible schools as possible to drive greater impact. 

The tender timeline indicates award in July and schools onboarding in July - a time when schools close for the summer break. Could the onboarding window be extended up to September to reduce mobilisation delays?

Onboarding of eligible schools onto the programme will begin in July 2026 and continue into September.

Will schools have to commit to funding costs of enrichment activities as part of the selection process? Is there any indication of what this level of financial commitment will be?

Schools will not have to commit to additional funding costs. There are no expectations on participating schools regarding how much budget they choose to allocate to enrichment. 

Grants to schools

Is the £2.8m being allocated to school grants to cover staff costs associated with improving their enrichment offer separate from this £16.8 funding stream?

Yes. The £16.8m available through this grant competition is to enhance the coordination between the vast, and often fragmented, enrichment offers that are delivered both in and out of school within areas of greatest need. The £2.8m will be provided separately to 400 schools to cover the cost of staff resource associated with improving their enrichment offer. 

What costs will the grants to school cover? Is any of the grant to be used for distributing to schools to pay for provision?

The funding is to enable schools to fund a dedicated staff member’s time to engage with the programme, for example to support the cost of a Teaching and Learning Responsibility. This direct funding is a result of insights from stakeholder engagement with experts and school leaders conducted in November-December 2025, which suggested that providing funding directly to schools to support their capacity to engage with the programme may help overcome barriers to implementation. 

What requirements, if any, apply to ensure that activity delivered through this commission aligns with the enrichment activity directly funded by DCMS for the 400 identified schools?

The grant funding to 400 schools, identified by DCMS, is to enable schools to fund a dedicated staff member’s time to improve their enrichment offer, for example to support the cost of a Teaching and Learning Responsibility.

We will favour applications that align their project to support these 400 schools, as the funding provided directly to schools will support school capacity to engage with the delivery partner’s programme.

Given one of the programme’s strategic objectives is to “Increase the number of young people taking up opportunities to access high-quality and varied enrichment offers, particularly for disadvantaged young people in underserved areas”, what funding will be allocated to growing the availability of enrichment provision in schools and local areas?

There are a range of government interventions that are being directed to support young people’s access to enrichment across education and community settings, all of which are contributing to the government’s wider ambition to halve the participation gap in enrichment activities between disadvantaged young people and their peers. 

Funding through this programme will focus on enhancing the coordination between the vast, and often fragmented, enrichment offers that are delivered both in and out of school within areas of greatest need.

The grant recipient will design the details of the programme’s activities in order to achieve its objectives effectively. We cannot comment specifically on potential design or delivery approaches, as it is up to the delivery partner to determine how our objectives will be most effectively met. 

What level of commitment do schools have to make to receive the grants to school funding?

Schools in receipt of grant funding will sign a grant agreement, which will outline the terms, conditions and expectations of receiving grant funding.  

Can you clarify what level of funding schools are getting for staff resource? Can schools use funding to second an existing member of staff?

The grants to schools is to enable the 400 eligible secondary schools to fund a dedicated staff member’s time to engage with the programme, for example to support the cost of a Teaching and Learning Responsibility. DCMS will share further details on funding for schools, including eligible spend, in due course.