Guidance

Clarification points added 20th September 2022

Updated 20 September 2022

Applies to England

Eligibility to be the Intermediary Grant Maker (IGM)

A single organisation or consortium can apply to be the IGM.

We welcome bids from consortia and single organisations.

Local authorities cannot apply to be the IGM or be members of a consortium.

Local authorities are not eligible to apply to be the IGM or to be members of a consortium application. Please see the eligibility criteria under 2.1 of the application form and guidance: “2.1 Grant-making body: Please confirm you are a not-for-profit grant-making body and you will be distributing onward grants. This grant will be made using section 70 of the Charities Act. Bidders must be charitable, benevolent or philanthropic institutions.” The power for ministers to provide financial assistance under section 70 of the Charities Act 2006 is expressly limited to providing financial assistance to charities, or institutions other than charities, which are established for charitable, benevolent, or philanthropic purposes.

Applicants applying to be the IGM may include in their bid advisory relationships with local authorities which help them to meet the Know Your Neighbourhood (KYN) Fund objectives, but where the local authority is not part of the consortium.

Devolved Administrations are not eligible for this funding.

This fund is for England only. Volunteering and tackling loneliness is a devolved matter and as such, funding is allocated to the devolved administrations through the Barnett Formula. The devolved administrations, including the Welsh Government, are able to spend their funding as they wish.

An arms length body (ALB) could receive funds through grant-in-aid if appointed as IGM.

Arms length bodies (ALBs) are eligible to apply to be the IGM for this fund. Some ALBs can receive grants, while others can only receive a grant-in-aid. We have some flexibility in issuing a grant through a grant-in-aid rather than a grant to ALBs, but would need to ensure that all bidders would be subject to the same terms and conditions to ensure a fair competition. If grant-in-aid, all grant expenditure will need to be classified as programme spend and spent within the time frames set out in the guidance.

The annual income or combined annual income (if a consortium application) of the IGM must be £12.4m to be eligible.

For clarity, applicants must apply to deliver the whole grant available, split over the three financial years (£1.6m 22/23, £6.2m 23/24 and £6.2m 24/25). The annual income of the applicant organisation, or the collective annual income of the applicant consortium, needs to be £12.4m or more in order to be eligible to deliver the grant in each financial year. This ensures that the value of grant does not represent more than 50% of the applicant organisation or consortium’s combined annual income as set out in the detailed guidance.

You can ascertain your financial eligibility by using forecasts based on the annual income of previous years.

Please use the accounts from the most recent financial years in your application. We understand that current and upcoming years will be based on forecast income.

Income from investment or gains from an endowment fund are eligible.

Income from investment income or gains from an endowment fund qualify towards the rule that the grant requested in each financial year must not represent more than 50% of the organisation’s annual income.

If a national charity was appointed as the IGM, charities within their own federated network would be eligible to apply for onward grants.

As long as the IGM creates an open and fair process for onward grants that does not favour charities within their own federated network, their federated network would be eligible to apply for onward grants. Prospective onward grantees must not have any involvement in the decision making panel.

There is not a specific youth focus to the fund.

This fund is aimed at reaching a wide range of demographics and age groups, not just a youth focused programme. Please refer to Section 4 of the detailed guidance for details.

Consortium Applications

There is not a standard definition of a consortium for this fund. The proposed consortium agreement and supply chain management should be set out in the application.

In this context, we have decided not to limit consortium applications to a specific form or definition of a consortium. This was to prevent potential partnerships or joint delivery work from being limited by a formal definition. We will, however, be assessing applicants (a single organisation or consortium bid) on how well their approach is able to meet fund objectives.

• In Section 4 of the Application Form and detailed guidance, you will notice that we will be assessing how your organisation will meet the objectives of the KYN Fund. In the context of a consortium, the “organisation” would be the approach of the consortium and its members.

• In Section 6 of the Application Form and detailed guidance, it sets out how we will be assessing your project management and internal governance approach. This is where bidders can set out their consortium arrangement. It will be important to set out how it would work in practice and set out the case for how members would work together.

There is not a limit on the number of consortium members or how they are distributed geographically.

We are not prescribing what the consortium might look like. We are looking for an application that sets out strong knowledge and understanding of what needs currently exist in a chosen area. However, that does not need to be through representation of local areas within the consortium.

The application should make clear how the consortium, with all the parties involved, has a strategic benefit for achieving the KYN Fund objectives. You may want to make clear the roles of different consortium members.

Consortium members will not be able to apply for onward grants to ensure that the funding is allocated through a fair and open competition process.

If applying as a federated charity, the federated network can apply for onward grants, as long as the IGM creates an open and fair process for onward grants that does not favour charities within their own federated network. Prospective onward grantees must not have any involvement in the decision making panel.

Bidders can set out arrangements with local partners that are advisory only (and therefore not part of the formal grant administration consortium), or they could describe how they will bring these local partners on board in future. Non-consortium members with purely advisory relationships with the successful IGM would be eligible for onward grants.

There is no specific quality standard or set requirement for the structure of a consortium.

There is no specific quality standard for a consortium, other than what is set out in the  detailed guidance.

There is not a requirement for a formal consortium or partnership arrangement.  As part of your response to Section 6, please set out your governance arrangements and any risks associated with your chosen partnership arrangement and how you will mitigate and manage these. A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between consortium members would be acceptable. If your application includes partners with an Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), or other non-binding arrangement, please include contingency planning in the event that one or more of these partners are unable to meet their commitments in delivering the grant objectives.

All consortium partners in a bid have to be from the not-for-profit sector.

All members of a consortium must be not-for-profit organisations. All consortium members must meet all the eligibility criteria, except that only the lead applicant in a consortium must be a UK Entity trading for at least 12 months. Please see Section 2.2 of the detailed guidance for more details.

Role of the Intermediary Grant Maker (IGM)

All funding needs to be distributed through a fair and open competition by the IGM through an onward grant making process.

The role of the IGM is to administer funding and support applicants. We are not being prescriptive about the approach, but we are looking for a fair and open process across the 6 to 9 areas.

There is no set relationship expected for the IGM to deliver grants to local organisations.

We are interested in how your application sets out an approach to delivering grants at a local level. This could include distributing onward grants which are then further distributed at a more local level, these would then be known as “sub-grantees”. There is, however, not a requirement for there to be any sub-grantees. We are not expecting one process over another. For clarity, all grant recipients, to “sub-grantee” level if applicable, need to input into the fund-level evaluation.

There are no parameters for the size of individual grant awards or a set number of onward grant recipients required.

The size of individual grant awards will be a decision for the IGM to make when designing the competition process for onward grants.  We are not being prescriptive about the number of projects funded or onward grants awarded.

There is scope for the IGM to provide support for grantees, for example capacity building, training or networking.

Some overarching capacity building, training and networking would be eligible expenditure for the grant administration. Projects which provide targeted training or capacity building support in the target communities can also be funded through the grants, as long as they are competed fairly and openly. This could include a package of support offered to other grantees.

It will be up to the successful IGM to make clear any future opportunities for organisations and charities to work with them.

The design of the onward grants competition will be up to the successful IGM. All DCMS funds will need to be awarded and spent by March 2025, within the financial year in which they are allocated. In bidding to be the IGM, your approach to the onward grants competition needs to be set out in your application.

DCMS will announce the successful IGM on gov.uk in due course.

To complete the application within the timeframe, we expect applicants will be outlining or building upon existing relationships with local partners in the areas they have selected.

We are looking to appoint an IGM that has a good understanding of the needs in their selected areas. If there are relationships you have already in those areas that you can build upon, please set this out in your application. We have set out the essential criteria for the IGM to work with local partners, but this role can be advisory and they do not need to be part of a formal grants distribution arrangement. We anticipate that networks will continue to be built after the IGM is appointed as systems level projects which might include the development of strategic partnerships, or infrastructure projects, are eligible.

Eligibility for Onward Grantees

Local authorities cannot receive onward grants from the IGM.

This fund is designed to be accessed by the voluntary and community sector. Local authorities are not eligible for project grants.

Campaigning and lobbying activities are not eligible for grants.

Onward grantees do not have to be registered charities, but they must be not-for-profit organisations.

Eligibility criteria for onward grantees will need to be agreed with DCMS to ensure funding goes to recipients with sufficient governance and management arrangements and financial sustainability.

Please refer to Section 2.1 of the detailed guidance.

Local infrastructure organisations can receive funding through the programme for capability building at a local level.

Systems level projects which are eligible for grant funding from the IGM include those which might be delivered by local infrastructure organisations to build the capability of local voluntary and community sector groups. Local infrastructure projects would need to apply for funding through an open and fair competition.

The eligibility criteria, that “any grant requested must not represent more than 50% of the applicant organisation or consortium’s combined annual income” is for the IGM.

This eligibility criteria is for the prospective IGM. However, to help ensure the financial sustainability of projects we would expect that wherever possible these criteria are flowed through to onward grant recipients. For example, the IGM may decide to apply the eligibility criteria of “any grant requested must not represent more than 50% of the applicant organisation or consortium’s combined annual income” to onward grant recipients. There is some flexibility here however, and the successful IGM will be able to set out to DCMS where it would be appropriate for different terms and conditions to be applied to onward grant recipients. Please set out your approach in your application. Eligibility criteria for onward grantees will need to be agreed with DCMS before the launch of the competition for onward grants.

Application

If you include a project plan as an attachment, this will not count towards the 500 word limit for question 6.1. No attachments other than those set out in the guidance should be submitted with your application.

Please do not include any additional attachments other than those set out in the guidance. To ensure a fair competition we cannot take additional information into account in our scoring other than that which is set out in the guidance.

DCMS cannot advise on applications or connect organisations with potential partners.

To ensure a fair and open competition to all applicants, we cannot be involved in connecting you with other organisations or advising you in any way. We also cannot support you in developing your proposal. Once the IGM is appointed, there may be opportunities in their selected areas to develop partnerships. For example, local infrastructure organisations would be eligible for grant funding from the IGM to build the capability of local voluntary and community sector groups. Local infrastructure projects would need to apply for funding through an open and fair competition.

DCMS will not facilitate networking between the successful IGM and prospective onward grantees.

We will announce the outcome of the competition for the IGM in due course. The successful IGM will need to set out in their bid how they will run an open and fair competition process and ensure there is a healthy pipeline of prospective grant applicants. This will not be the responsibility of DCMS. We also do not plan to directly facilitate networking between prospective bidders for the IGM role during the competition phase.

Funding

Funding for this programme will not be final until a grant agreement has been signed.

The funding for this programme will not be final until a grant agreement has been signed between DCMS and the successful applicant. While unlikely, this fund could be closed or reduced in scale after the signing of the grant agreement, if DCMS is directed to do so by a Minister. Under those circumstances, we would give notice as per the standard terms and conditions of the grant agreement.

It is possible, but not guaranteed, that some parts of the DCMS standard Grant Terms and Conditions can be changed through mutual agreement.

We have provided the standard terms and conditions used for DCMS grants for you to review. In the past, we have amended these where there is mutual agreement between DCMS and grant recipients. However, we cannot provide assurance that will be possible in all cases. Please set out the terms you would want to seek DCMS’ agreement on within your application. If these are not acceptable to DCMS, your application may be ineligible so please make it clear if there are any standard terms which are unacceptable to you.

Applicants can request up to 6% for the administration fee.

The administration percentage is up to 6% of the grant requested, which in this case would be up to £840,000 from £14m. Where the guidance refers to a 5% administration percentage, this is for illustrative purposes only, as the amount of onward grants awarded will vary depending on the successful applicant’s proposed administration fee. Applications will be scored in Section 3 based on their proposed administration fee. Please see Annex B in the guidance for more information on how this will be scored.

Inflation could have an impact on this Fund.

Inflation could affect the project plans of onward grant recipients by reducing the value of the grants and increasing grant administration delivery costs. Applicants should set out their risk management for project budgets, so that costs do not exceed budgeted figures.

£1.6m needs to be awarded and spent between January 2023 to March 2023.

£1.6m needs to be awarded and spent by the end of March 2023, including evaluation and admin spend. This can be used for start-up elements of funded projects. Individual funded projects do not need to be completed by the end of March, but £1.6m towards the activity will need to be spent by the end of March 2023.

No additional expenses will be funded by DCMS beyond March 2025.

DCMS would not be able to cover any additional expenses beyond March 2025. If evaluation and grant closure activities continue beyond March 2025, we cannot commit to any further spend beyond this time.

Place Selection

Identifying 6 areas to work in increases our ability to learn from the Fund.

A key ambition of this fund is to develop our understanding of how to improve wellbeing and pride in place in these communities. By working in a select number of areas, we can learn how volunteering and community initiatives tackling loneliness help to achieve these aims. Distributing smaller amounts of funding across all the 27 areas would reduce our ability to learn what works in local areas.

We have identified these places as part of a robust place identification methodology. Within the list of locations given, we don’t have a preference on which areas to deliver in. We are looking for an IGM who can deliver the most impact in the areas of their choosing. You can find more information on this in Annex A of the guidance.

The 6 - 9 areas to work in need to be decided at the application stage.

You will need to set out the 6 to 9 areas you intend to work in at the application stage, not after the IGM is appointed. We are looking for an even spread between the three area types. There is no preferential weighting on any of the 3 area types. There should be at least two areas selected from each area type.

Where an organisation is involved in 2 separate applications, the same 6 - 9 areas can be included in these applications.

Organisations in the long list areas may not be aware of the fund or their area’s appearance on the long list.

We have conducted promotion across the chosen areas but inevitably this may not have reached all relevant organisations within the areas.

There are no specific supply chain management quality standards required.

Evaluation

The IGM will be responsible for administering £1,080,000 for project-level evaluations.

The IGM will be responsible for administering £1,080,000 of funding for project-level evaluations. This can be allocated differently across the three years, as long as it does not exceed the total.

For the overarching evaluation, £320,000 is separately procured by DCMS.

Project evaluations need to be completed by the end of the grant period, March 2025.

Project level evaluations do not have to be completed by the end of March 2023 for projects funded in the current year.

Project-level evaluations can be commissioned by the onward grant recipients or the IGM.

Both arrangements would be eligible. DCMS does not have a preference here. Please note the DCMS led element of the evaluation will include an overarching review of all the project-level evaluations.

The IGM can carry out the project-level evaluations in house if it has the capacity.

If the IGM has the capacity and expertise, you can include that as part of your application. We will be looking for an independent and rigorous approach to evaluation so we would advise acknowledging how the evaluation can meet this criteria in your application.

The stage at which evaluating partners are identified is at the discretion of the IGM.

It is the decision of the applicant whether independent evaluating partners are identified if the bid is approved or are finalised in the proposal stage

The administration costs associated with the evaluation cannot come from the evaluation budget.

The administration budget is to be used for all administrative costs associated with the fund, including administering the project-level evaluations and inputting into the overarching fund-level evaluation.

The timescale for the tender process for the overarching evaluation commercially tendered by DCMS is not yet confirmed and no further details are available as yet.

DCMS intends to contract an external evaluator through the Crown Commercial Services Research and Insights DPS (RM6126). DCMS will not be advertising the opportunity as it will only be available to framework suppliers. We hope to have a contractor in place as soon as possible.

The process to become a Framework Supplier is managed by Crown Commercial Services.

The process to register to become a supplier for Research and Insights RM6126 is via an application process managed by Crown Commercial Services (CCS). The application can be accessed via this link.  Please note that the registration process is independent of DCMS, any questions about this process should be raised with CCS directly.

A randomised control trial is the ideal example of an experimental/ quasi-experimental evaluation approach.

We are interested in understanding the impact of the funded projects. Experimental or quasi-experimental evaluation approaches enable us to judge how confidently we can say that any positive (or negative) effect was caused by the project. A randomised controlled trial is the gold standard of impact evaluation to help demonstrate causality, using a randomised control group or comparison group who did not benefit through the project. However, there are alternative quasi-experimental designs where you can still have a comparison group to provide a counterfactual.

There are various guidance documents which set out different experimental and quasi-experimental evaluation approaches. The HM Government’s Magenta Book includes more information about evaluation methods. We have also suggested that you refer to the Nesta Using Research Guidance: Practice Guide for their evidence standards and set out how you will aim to ensure project-level evaluations are at a minimum level 3 if possible - “You can demonstrate causality using a control or comparison group”. We recognise that won’t always be possible, so a theory based impact evaluation may be used instead if needed.

Match Funding

It is not essential to match fund. There is no minimum or maximum amount that should be raised. In kind match funding is eligible as well as cash match funding. Existing or other government funding cannot be used to match this fund.

In kind match funding can be considered as part of the application. Please also refer to the detailed guidance Section 1.20 and 1.21. Please remember that match funding is not essential.

Match funding does not have to be spent within the financial year deadlines.

DCMS funding has to be spent according to the timelines. There are no timeline limits on when match funding is spent.

There are no formal restrictions on sensitive sectors from which matched funds cannot be raised.

There are no formal restrictions, but you should exercise due judgement in relation to reputational risk.