Eligibility, Due Diligence and Expectations

Who Can Apply?

We welcome applications from a range of organisation types, including VCSE sector organisations, Community Interest Companies (CICs), Local Authorities, schools and multi-academy trusts (MATs). This could include libraries, youth organisations, community organisations and organisations responsible for the governance and operation of schools. 

Where a school is part of a MAT or other governing body, the application must be submitted by the organisation responsible for the governance and operation of the school(s). Applicants will be required to demonstrate that the applying organisation is authorised to enter into a grant agreement and deliver the proposed activities.

As set out in the eligibility requirements below, all applicants must meet the relevant statutory and organisational eligibility criteria in order to receive funding.

Applications may be submitted by a single organisation or a consortium (for example, a joint application between a VCSE youth organisation and a Local Authority). 

We encourage consortium approaches that can bring together complementary skills and expertise in areas such as youth engagement and local delivery. This may, for example, apply to organisations who feel that alone they do not have the capacity or capability to address the pilot’s requirements, or wish to bring in additional expertise to meet the required skills and experience. Applicants should determine the most appropriate approach to delivering their proposal.

Flexible Delivery Approaches

DCMS expects the pilot to operate across at least three locations. Applicants may apply to deliver the pilot across all three locations, or within one or two locations where they can demonstrate strong local knowledge, partnerships and delivery capability. 

DCMS reserves the right to appoint a single delivery partner for the whole pilot, or multiple delivery partners where this would provide the strongest overall delivery model and achieve the best outcomes for participants.

Applicants should clearly identify the location(s) they are proposing to deliver within and explain how their approach will contribute to the objectives of the pilot.

Applicants proposing delivery across three or more locations should indicate whether they would be willing to deliver within a smaller number of locations if DCMS decides to appoint multiple delivery partners. Where relevant, applicants should explain how they would adapt their staffing, partnerships, delivery model and budget in this scenario. 

Funding Expectations for Single-Location Delivery

Applicants proposing to deliver in a single location should develop a budget that is proportionate to the scale of delivery proposed.

Based on the indicative funding profile for the pilot, applicants may wish to assume that funding could be allocated broadly across the three delivery locations. On this basis, a single-location proposal might typically require funding of approximately:

• £68,000–£78,000 in 2026/27

• £74,000–£91,000 in 2027/28

• £74,000–£91,000 in 2028/29

These figures are indicative only and applicants should determine the level of funding required based on their proposed delivery model.

Applicants should note that funding is expected to cover all costs associated with delivery in that location, including: 

• local partnership building and outreach activities;

• staff costs;

• staff training and development;

• gaming hardware and software (subject to eligibility requirements);

• venue and activity costs;

• establishment and management of the online delivery offer; and

• monitoring, reporting and grant management activities.

In 2026/27, DCMS expects delivery partners will focus significantly on activities including partnership development, staff training, safeguarding processes, establishment of the online delivery offer, and wider programme set-up. As a result, participant reach may be lower during the first year, then building in subsequent years. We expect delivery and participant numbers to increase during 2027/28 and 2028/29 as delivery models become fully established.

Local Authorities

Local Authorities may apply either as sole applicants or consortium partners. Where a Local Authority applies as a sole applicant and is successful, funding will be administered under Section 31 of the Local Government Act 2003 via a formal Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) Determination Letter and an accompanying Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

Eligibility Requirements 

Applicants should note the requirements set out in the ‘Flexible Delivery Approaches’ section above regarding applications covering three locations, or a smaller number. 

To be eligible, applicants must meet the minimum requirements below and provide the relevant supporting documentation. These criteria will be assessed on a Pass/Fail basis:

Organisational Eligibility

Applicants must:

• Be a UK-based organisation that has been operating for at least two years.

• Demonstrate that the project will be delivered on a strictly not-for-profit basis.

• Request no more than 50% of their average annual income (based on the previous two financial years) in any single year of grant funding.

• Be either:

• a Local Authority in England; or

• a charitable, benevolent or philanthropic institution eligible to receive funding under Section 70 of the Charities Act 2006.

Funding may be awarded under either:

• Section 31 of the Local Government Act 2003 in respect of Local Authorities; or

• Section 70 of the Charities Act 2006 in respect of charitable, benevolent or philanthropic institutions. 

For the purposes of this competition, applicants seeking funding under Section 70 of the Charities Act 2006 may include: 

• charities registered with the Charity Commission; 

• charitable incorporated organisations (CIOs);

• community interest companies (CICs);

• companies limited by guarantee operating on a not-for-profit basis; and

• other organisations established for charitable, benevolent or philanthropic purposes

Applicants seeking funding under Section 70 must provide evidence demonstrating that they are eligible to receive funding under this power. This may include:

• a charity registration number;

• governing or constitutional documents (for example, a Memorandum and Articles of Association;

• registration documents; or

• other evidence demonstrating that the organisation has been established for charitable, benevolent or philanthropic purposes. 

Projects funded under Section 70 of the Charities Act 2006 must deliver benefits, either directly or indirectly, to the whole or part of England. This competition funds delivery in eligible locations in England. Applicants must therefore demonstrate through their proposed delivery locations, activities and target participants that the project will benefit people and communities in England. Information provided elsewhere in the application will be used to confirm that this requirement has been met. 

Where a consortium application is submitted, these requirements apply to the lead applicant only. 

Experience and Delivery Capability

Applicants must demonstrate:

• Youth Engagement and Delivery Experience:

• Applicants must demonstrate experience of delivering services for young people and engaging them through activities, interests, communities or digital platforms. 

• We welcome applicants who can show how they have used gaming, online communities, or other youth interests to build relationships, strengthen social connections and support positive outcomes for young people. 

• Where relevant expertise sits within a consortium partner, lead applicants should explain how it will contribute to programme delivery. 

• Delivery Capacity: 

• A clear plan to deliver the programme within the location(s) proposed by the applicant, demonstrating sufficient delivery capacity, appropriate local partnerships and a credible approach to participant engagement and reach.

• How local partnerships, community relationships, and local expertise will support delivery. 

• Their ability to identify, engage and retain boys aged 11-16 who may be experiencing loneliness, isolation or social withdrawal throughout the project.

Safeguarding and Online Safety Requirements: 

• Applicants must provide a comprehensive safeguarding policy covering both in-person and online delivery.

• This should include arrangements for risk management, moderation, child protection and the safe use of online platforms, with particular regard to any messaging functionality. 

• Applicants must demonstrate how any online provision will prevent communication between participants and unknown users outside the programme. Proposals involving public livestreaming or functionality that enables contact with strangers will not be eligible for funding. 

• Applicants should set out how facilitators or other trusted adults involved in the pilot will be equipped to support participants throughout the pilot. This should include appropriate training and support to help them respond to online safety issues, facilitate discussions around sensitive or complex topics that may arise.  

Data Protection and GDPR Compliance:

• Applicants must demonstrate appropriate policies, processes and experience to manage participant data securely and in compliance with UK GDPR and relevant data protection legislation. 

Supporting Mandatory Documentation:

Applicants must provide:

• At least two references

• Annual reports or certified accounts covering the previous two years (or similar documentation). 

• Any additional information reasonably requested through the due diligence process. 

Where an applicant has previously received UK Government funding, DCMS will seek feedback from the relevant department. 

If the applicant’s most recent financial year ended more than six months before the application deadline, DCMS may request additional financial information.

Consortium Applications

Where a consortium bid is submitted, that application must:  

• identify a lead party who will act on behalf of all parties to the consortium application and be responsible for all communication with the department throughout the application and appointment process.

• include a structure diagram identifying the roles and relationships between the parties including all companies taking part in the consortium, including their respective parent or ultimate holding companies. The structure should make clear who will be responsible for delivery of the grant and ensure that, as a minimum, the legal obligations and liabilities of the applicant are borne by an entity or entities which satisfy the financial requirements set out in this specification of requirements.

• include a written confirmation from each party to the consortium that they authorise the lead party to act on their behalf in relation to this grant competition. 

• include a written agreement in principle between all parties to the consortium, outlining budget splits and staffing arrangements. Legally binding agreements would need to be in place before the successful applicant commences delivery.

• The value of any grant requested in any given year must not represent more than 50% of the lead applicant’s average annual income for the previous two financial years.

Consortium members must also provide annual reports and audited or certified accounts covering the previous two years.

For joint approaches to be eligible, they must adhere to the following criteria and provide the following mandatory documentation:

• The lead applicant must be a UK entity and have been trading in the UK for at least two years. For additional partners, this is a preference but not essential.

• Any organisations that are applying as a consortium must provide a copy of annual reports and audited or certified accounts covering the last two years. NB. The lead applicant must provide these documents, and consortia partner documents must also be provided at this stage

• Trustees and directors from multiple organisations are not related and there is no indication of fraud.

• Where multiple organisations are located at the same postcode, there is no indication of fraud – if multiple organisations hold the same address, they will be asked to provide an explanation.

Due Diligence

DCMS does not tolerate fraud, bribery or corruption. Applications will be checked against various databases to assess accuracy of the information provided. DCMS will monitor the grant throughout its lifetime and may conduct additional assurance exercises to ensure that funding is being spent correctly.  

We expect applicants to provide further information, if requested, as the result of due diligence and risk assessment checks. DCMS will conduct its due diligence checks through processes including (but not limited to):

• The Government’s online automated due-diligence tool “Spotlight”

• Manual pre- and post-award checks in line with Cabinet Office’s Guidance for General Grants

Examples of issues which may preclude applicants from being eligible for funding include:

• Non-provision of the mandatory documentation

• Inaccurate or incomplete Charity Commission / Companies House information 

• Inaccurate or incomplete budget and cash flow documents

• Inaccurate or incomplete project plan 

• (In the case of a joint bid) the above issues being present with one of the delivery partners, even if not a concern for the other delivery partners / consortia members

Eligibility process

Applicants will be asked to demonstrate how they meet the requirements set out above. Applications that fail to meet this eligibility criteria will not proceed to full assessment. 

Delivery partner expectations

In addition to the minimum eligibility requirements, we are looking for delivery partners that can demonstrate:

Knowledge and Experience 

• • Experience of working with young people who may be experiencing loneliness, isolation or low wellbeing, including an understanding of the factors that can contribute to these challenges. 

  • An ability to use gaming and related activities as a route to engage boys, build trusted relationships and support positive social connections;

  • Experience of working collaboratively with local partners, such as schools, local authorities, and voluntary sector organisations, to establish potential referral pathways and support delivery. 

Delivery and Management Capability

• • Experience of designing and delivering programmes that support young people to build confidence, wellbeing and social connections.  

  • Sufficient staff capacity, skills and experience to deliver the programme across at least three locations and provide appropriate support to participants. 

  • Robust safeguarding arrangements for both in-person and online delivery, including the safe management of online platforms and participant interactions.

  • Appropriate financial management systems and processes to account for the pilot’s grant expenditure accurately and transparently, such as fraud risk assessments, fraud, bribery, anti-corruption and due diligence policies, and experience managing counter fraud processes.

  • Experience establishing risk management protocols to counter technology-specific threats such as cyber security, hacking, or malware.

Fund Objectives

The aim of the pilot is to test whether gaming-based approaches can help boys aged 11-16 who may be experiencing loneliness, isolation or social withdrawal to build confidence, strengthen social connections and improve wellbeing. 

By 31 March 2029, the pilot should: 

• Improve our understanding of what works by contributing to the evidence base on effective approaches to reducing loneliness and strengthening social connections among boys aged 11-16. The delivery partner will work closely with an independent evaluator commissioned by DCMS, who will produce a comprehensive final evaluation report by Q1 29/30.

• Reach and engage boys at risk of loneliness and isolation, particularly those not currently engaging with existing youth provision. 

• Increase awareness of isolation, loneliness and the impact on mental health, using gaming-based activities to help boys recognise, discuss and seek support for these issues with greater confidence, while helping to reduce the stigma in discussing these issues.

• Help participants overcome barriers to connection, including internal barriers (such as social anxiety or low self-esteem) and external barriers (such as a lack of safe in-person spaces or financial restrictions) by building self-confidence and equipping boys with the skills needed to sustain long-term connections. 

• Increase opportunities for social connection, using gaming as a way to support boys to transition from solitary digital engagement into collaborative social spaces where they can share experiences and develop friendships, online and in person.

Application timeline

The timeline below is indicative and subject to change.

• Competition opens for applications: Friday 31st July 2026

• Clarification questions deadline: 23:59 Friday 14th August 2026

• Publication of DCMS’s responses to clarification questions: Tuesday 25th August 2026

• Closing deadline for applications: 23:59 Friday 11th September 2026

• Applications Assessment: Monday 14th September - Thursday 25th September 2026

• Notification of recommendation for approval (subject to DCMS final business case approval): Wednesday 30th September 2026

• Notification of formal approval: w/b Monday 2nd November 2026

Unsuccessful applicationsWe will inform all unsuccessful applicants in November 2026. Written feedback will be provided to applicants whose applications progress beyond the initial sift stage.

Please note that the decision will be final.

How to apply

Please follow the steps below to apply:

1. Ensure you have fully read the ‘Connections Through Gaming’ Pilot Fund application guidance outlined on this page.

2. Read DCMS’s standard terms and conditions of grants.

3. Complete the application form.

Any application received after the closing date will not be assessed.

It is your responsibility to ensure your application is concise, fully completed, and that you supply all the necessary supporting documentation.

Assessment

Evaluation criteria

Applications will be assessed by a panel. Please assume that assessors have no or limited background knowledge of your organisation, its aims, and what it does. It is therefore important that your application is as clear, concise and unambiguous, and provides sufficient evidence to demonstrate how your organisation meets each requirement.

In particular, applicants should clearly set out their relevant organisational experience, expertise and capability, including experience of working with young people, knowledge of loneliness and social connection, and any other skills, partnerships or resources that support the successful delivery of the fund objectives. 

1. Initial sift - We will review your application to check that it meets the eligibility requirements. 

2. Assessment and moderation of eligible bids - Eligible applications will be assessed and scored against the criteria below.

We are looking for proposals that demonstrate a strong understanding of the needs of boys who may be experiencing loneliness, isolation, social withdrawal or low wellbeing, and a clear approach to using gaming and related activities to engage them, build confidence and strengthen social connections.

In assessing applications, Assessors will consider both the quality of the proposed project and the applicant organisation’s capacity, capability, relevant experience and delivery approach. This includes experience of delivering previous programmes, building effective partnerships, monitoring and evaluating outcomes, and delivering successfully across multiple locations.

The table below outlines what we are looking for, the weighting in the bid evaluation, and the questions we will use to make our assessment.

Measure 

Weighting %

Related questions 

Pilot Proposal: Applicants must be able to explain sufficiently the project or projects to be completed by 31 March 2029 and how they intend to meet the fund objectives. 

30%

5.1

5.2

Pilot Delivery: Applicants must demonstrate the organisation's capacity, capability and relevant experience to deliver the proposed project(s). This should include evidence of:

• Understanding the needs of young people and communities in the proposed delivery areas;

• Understanding of loneliness and social connection;

• Experience of delivering similar programmes;

• Experience of working collaboratively across multiple locations, partners and stakeholders, and a delivery model that is appropriate to the geographic scale proposed.

• Organisational capability, staffing and governance arrangements; and

• A clear delivery plan showing how the fund objectives will be achieved.

Assessors will also consider the robustness of safeguarding and online safety arrangements, including the extent to which facilitators and trusted adults are equipped to support participants, respond appropriately to sensitive or complex issues that may arise during delivery, and ensure that any online elements are delivered within safe and appropriately moderated environments. This includes the extent to which applicants have designed online delivery in a manner consistent with Government online safety policy, as well as ensuring that publicly accessible livestreaming and stranger-contact functionalities are not used as part of the programme.

30%

6.16.26.3

6.4

6.5

10.2

Monitoring and Evaluation: Applications must set out their past experience and approach to monitoring data collection, include outcomes to be measured (number of beneficiaries etc), and their approach to engagement with DCMS and the external evaluator.  Demonstrate how they will apply learnings from third party evaluations. 

10%

7.17.2

Legacy and Sustainability: Applications must set out how they will maximise the long-term benefits of the pilot once funding has finished, including how they will ensure knowledge sharing to support a potential future rollout.  

10%

8.1

Pilot Finances: Applicants must set out the financial management systems and processes that will be used to ensure the grant expenditure is accounted for accurately and transparently. Applicants should also set out their organisational approach to managing Fraud.

20%

9.19.2 9.39.49.5

9.6

Total

100%

 n/a

1. Moderation of scores

Scores will be moderated and an overall score will be given to each bid.

Each question response will be evaluated and marked on a scale of 0 to 4, where:

0 – Wholly Unsatisfactory: for example, does not meet requirements, and/or raises serious concerns

1 – Weak Confidence: for example, meets some requirements but with gaps and/or some minor concerns

2 – Satisfactory Confidence: for example, meets most/all requirements, but lacks sufficient details or evidence in some areas

3 – Good Confidence: for example, meets all requirements and provides a detailed response, but lacks evidence in minor areas

4 – Excellent Confidence: for example, meets all requirements, provides a detailed response and evidence which demonstrates a particularly strong understanding of the requirements.

The scoring framework for each section of the application form can be found in Supporting Information.

Your overall score will be a percentage and will be determined by the marks awarded for each criteria (out of 4) in accordance with the applicable weighting. For example, if the weighting for a question is 20%, a mark of 4 for that question would lead to a score of 20%, a mark of 3 for that question would lead to a score of 15%, a mark of 2 for that question would lead to a score of 10%, a mark of 1 for that question would lead to a score of 5%, and a mark of 0 would lead to a score of 0%. DCMS reserves the right to reject any bidder who scores 0 in any of the questions and/or achieves an overall score of less than 50%.

1. Due Diligence

All applicants will be subject to comprehensive due diligence reviews and other database searches, including fraud risk indicators. The relevant documentation is expected to be provided alongside your application form. A checklist is provided in the application form.

1. Final confirmation

DCMS aims to notify the applicant(s) who is recommended for approval by 30th September 2026, subject to approval of the final internal DCMS business case. Formal approval is expected to be by the w/c 2nd November 2026.

Advice and Support

All available information and guidance relating to this grant funding is contained above and in the application form.

Clarification questions may be sent to loneliness@dcms.gov.uk up until 23:59 Friday 14th August, after which no more will be responded to.

All clarification questions will be anonymised and made public so that all potential applicants are able to access any additional information. 

As the application process is competitive, we are unable to provide support in completing the application.

Annex A - Scoring Framework

1. Project Proposal

• Assessment question: Does the proposed project meet the objectives of the grant funding?

• Weighting: This section is worth 30% of the proposal assessment.

• The appraiser must consider whether the bidder:

1. shows a clear understanding of the five core objectives of the fund and presents a credible approach to using gaming as a route to engage boys at risk of loneliness and isolation, supporting them to build confidence and strengthen social connections. 

2. shows a clear understanding of the social connection needs, barriers to participation, and risks of loneliness and isolation facing the target cohort (boys aged 11-16), particularly in disadvantaged communities.

3. has a track record of engaging and supporting young people who may be experiencing loneliness, isolation, social withdrawal or low wellbeing, and sets out a delivery team with the appropriate skills and experience to deliver the programme effectively. 

4. provides examples of previous approaches that have successfully used activities, interests or shared experiences (such as gaming, sport or other youth interests) to engage young people, build relationships and support positive outcomes.

A “best-case” proposal in this instance would make the biggest impact in all of the following ways:

• Demonstrably increase awareness of isolation, loneliness and the impact on mental health - e.g. creating low pressure, engaging environments where boys feel comfortable discussing emotional well-being and seeking support from those around them, reducing the stigma surrounding loneliness in boys.

• Demonstrably reach and engage boys who are at risk of loneliness and isolation, and currently disconnected from existing youth services - e.g. through building trusted adult relationships with the participating boys, and partnerships with local authorities, schools or community stakeholders.

• Demonstrably support participants to overcome barriers to connection - e.g. establishing bonds between participants and trusted adults who can provide a support system and through measured expansions of participants’ experience of the programme and relationships built. 

• Demonstrably increase opportunities for social connection - e.g. using team based gaming to guide boys from solitary gaming into interactive shared in-person and online communities

• Demonstrably improve our collective understanding of what works best in delivering interventions with boys - e.g. data collection that allows an independent evaluator to capture data throughout the duration of the pilot

Assessment scoring:

Excellent

4

The bid:

• demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the fund objectives and the needs of boys aged 11-16 who are at risk of loneliness and isolation.

• provides a clear, evidence-based rationale for why the proposed approach is expected to achieve the intended outcomes. 

• sets out a detailed and credible delivery model with clear links between activities and outcomes.

• provides strong evidence of relevant experience, previous delivery and successful engagement with comparable cohorts.

• clearly explains how the project will:

• increase awareness of isolation, loneliness and the impact on mental health;

• reach and engage boys who are at risk of loneliness and isolation;

• support participants to overcome barriers to connection;

• increase opportunities for social connection;

• improve our collective understanding of what works best in delivering interventions with boys.

• identifies risks and mitigations and demonstrates a high likelihood of successful delivery.

• provides measurable outcomes and a robust approach to collecting evidence of impact. 

Overall: The proposal gives a very high level of confidence that it will achieve the objectives of the fund and deliver significant impact.

Good

3

The bid:

• demonstrates a good understanding of the fund objectives and target cohort

• provides a clear rationale for why the proposed approach is expected to achieve the intended outcomes.

• sets out a credible delivery model with appropriate links between activities and outcomes.

• provides evidence of relevant experience and capability to deliver the pilot.

• explains how the project will: 

• increase awareness of isolation, loneliness and the impact on mental health;

• reach and engage boys who are at risk of loneliness and isolation;

• support participants to overcome barriers to connection;

• increase opportunities for social connection;

• improve our collective understanding of what works best in delivering interventions with boys.

• identifies key risks and appropriate mitigations.

• provides a reasonable approach to measuring outcomes and impact

Overall: The proposal gives a good level of confidence that it will achieve the objectives of the fund and deliver reasonable impact.

Satisfactory

2

The bid:

• demonstrates an adequate understanding of the fund objectives and target cohort.

• provides a rationale for the proposed approach, although this lacks detail, evidence or clarity in places.

• sets out a delivery model that is broadly credible but includes some gaps or weaknesses. 

• provides limited evidence of relevant experience or previous delivery. 

• addresses most of the five desired outcomes but does not fully explain how the project will:

• increase awareness of isolation, loneliness and the impact on mental health;

• reach and engage boys who are at risk of loneliness and isolation;

• support participants to overcome barriers to connection;

• increase opportunities for social connection;

• improve our collective understanding of what works best in delivering interventions with boys.

• identifies some risks, although mitigations may be underdeveloped.

• provides a basic approach to measuring outcomes and impact. 

Overall: The proposal gives a satisfactory level of confidence that it can achieve the objectives of the fund, but there are areas of uncertainty.

Some concerns

1

The bid meets one or more of the criteria below:

• demonstrates a limited understanding of the fund objectives or target cohort.

• provides an unclear or inadequately evidenced rationale for the proposed approach. 

• sets out a delivery model with significant gaps, weaknesses or uncertainties.

• provides little evidence of relevant experience or capability.

• fails to adequately explain how the pilot will:

• increase awareness of isolation, loneliness and the impact on mental health;

• reach and engage boys who are at risk of loneliness and isolation;

• support participants to overcome barriers to connection;

• increase opportunities for social connection;

• improve our collective understanding of what works best in delivering interventions with boys.

• identifies risks but provides inadequate mitigations, or fails to consider significant risk.

• provides an insufficient approach to measuring outcomes and impact. 

Overall: The proposal gives limited confidence that it will achieve the objectives of the fund.

Serious concerns

0

The bid meets all or most of the following criteria:

• demonstrates little or no understanding of the fund objectives or target cohort.

• fails to provide a credible rationale for the proposed approach.

• sets out a delivery model that is not viable or lacks sufficient detail to assess feasibility. 

• provides no meaningful evidence of relevant experience or capability. 

• fails to explain how the project will:

• increase awareness of isolation, loneliness and the impact on mental health;

• reach and engage boys who are at risk of loneliness and isolation;

• support participants to overcome barriers to connection;

• increase opportunities for social connection;

• improve our collective understanding of what works best in delivering interventions with boys.

• does not identify significant risks or provide credible mitigations.

• provides no credible approach to measuring outcomes and impact. 

Overall: The proposal gives very low confidence that it will achieve the objectives of the fund.

2. Project delivery

• Assessment question: Does the bidder have the capacity and capability to design and deliver their proposal?

• Weighting: This section is worth 30% of the proposal assessment.

• The appraiser must consider whether the bidder:

• provides clear detail for their proposed activities, outputs and outcomes

• has a solid delivery plan with relevant milestones

• has key staff with the experience needed, assigned to the appropriate roles to facilitate delivery 

• demonstrates a previous track record on similar projects 

• demonstrates they will spend the funds in the timelines of the grant funding 

Assessment scoring:

Excellent

4

The bid:

• proposes a project that provides an excellent level of detail for its activities, outputs and outcomes

• provides full confidence that the organisation:

• has a solid delivery plan with relevant milestones

• has the necessary youth delivery experience and can demonstrate how it will develop and sustain local partnerships to support project delivery

• has sufficient staff available to deliver the project 

• has key staff experienced in the roles they are being assigned to

• will  be highly effective in delivering on their proposal because of the bidder’s track record on similar projects.

• will ensure that the funds are spent in the timelines of the grant funding.

• (If they are working as a consortium) provides full confidence that the consortium work will add value to the programme and that the level of arrangement they put in place to manage the consortium is appropriate.

Good

3

The bid:

• proposes a project that provides a good level of detail for its activities, outputs and outcomes

• provides confidence that the organisation:

• has a solid delivery plan with relevant milestones

• has the necessary youth delivery experience and can demonstrate how it will develop and sustain local partnerships to support project delivery

• has sufficient staff available to deliver the project 

• has key staff experienced in the roles they are being assigned to

• will be effective in delivering on their proposal because of the bidder’s track record on similar projects.

• will ensure that the funds are spent in the timelines of the grant funding.

• (If they are working as a consortium) provides confidence that the consortium work will add value to the programme and that the level of arrangement they put in place to manage the consortium is appropriate.

Satisfactory

2

The bid:

• proposes a project that provides a satisfactory level of detail for its activities, outputs and outcomes

• provides limited confidence that the organisation:

• has a solid delivery plan with relevant milestones

• has the necessary youth delivery experience and can demonstrate how it will develop and sustain local partnerships to support project delivery

• has sufficient staff available to deliver the project 

• has key staff experienced in the roles they are being assigned to

• will be limited in delivering on their proposal because of the bidder’s track record on similar projects.

• will ensure that the funds are spent in the timelines of the grant funding.

• (If they are working as a consortium) provides limited confidence that the consortium work will add value to the programme and that the level of arrangement they put in place to manage the consortium is appropriate.

Some concerns

1

The bid: (one or more)

• raises concerns that the organisation:

  • a solid delivery plan with relevant milestones

  • the necessary youth delivery experience and can demonstrate how it will develop and sustain local partnerships to support project delivery

  • sufficient staff available to deliver the project 

  • key staff experienced for the roles they are being assigned to

• does not not have:

• may not be effective in delivering on their proposal because of the bidder’s track record on similar projects

• will not ensure that the funds are spent in the timelines of the grant funding.

• (If they are working as a consortium) raises concerns that the consortium work will not add value to the programme and that arrangements in place to manage the consortium are not appropriate.

Serious concerns

0

The bid: (all of) 

• proposes a pilot that provides an unsatisfactory level of detail for its activities, outputs and outcomes

• raises concerns that the organisation:

  • a solid delivery plan with relevant milestones

  • the necessary youth delivery experience and can demonstrate how it will develop and sustain local partnerships to support project delivery

  • sufficient staff available to deliver the project 

  • key staff experienced for the roles they are being assigned to

  • may not be effective in delivering on their proposal because of the bidder’s track record on similar projects.

  • will not ensure that the funds are spent in the timelines of the grant funding.

• does not have:

• (If they are working as a consortium) raises concerns that the consortium work will not add value to the programme and that arrangements in place to manage the consortium are not appropriate.

3. Monitoring and Evaluation

• Assessment question: Will the bidder add value to an independent evaluation and utilise and generate relevant data and evidence that can be used to support programme design, evaluation and continuous improvement and learning? 

• Weighting: This section is worth 10% of the proposal assessment.

• The appraiser must consider whether the bidder:

•  has a successful track record of delivering or supporting monitoring and evaluation for similar schemes/grants

• has any internal policies of processes which would effectively gather information and enable monitoring

• has considered the outcomes they are seeking to deliver and shows a clear understanding of how they will collect monitoring data and feedback

• will work with DCMS and an external evaluator to support evaluation design and collect monitoring information across timescales which will assist evaluation - this may include engagement after grant funding has ceased.

Assessment scoring:

Excellent

4

The bid gives you full confidence that the organisation has the culture, people and processes in place to do all of the following: 

• Effectively monitor the delivery of the project, ensuring that quality of delivery keeps to a high standard

• Add value to programme evaluation, working with DCMS and external evaluators. 

• Effectively collect relevant data and apply learnings from external evaluation to inform best practice and (if applicable) elevate project delivery

Good

3

The bid gives you confidence that the organisation has the culture, people and processes in place to do all of the following: 

• Effectively monitor the delivery of the project, ensuring that quality of delivery keeps to a high standard

• Add value to programme evaluation, working with DCMS and external evaluators

• Effectively collect relevant data and apply learnings from external evaluations to inform best practice and (if applicable) elevate project delivery

Satisfactory

2

The bid gives you limited confidence that the organisation has the culture, people and processes in place to do all of the following: 

• Effectively monitor the delivery of the project, ensuring that quality of delivery keeps to a high standard

• Add value to programme evaluation, working with DCMS and external evaluators

• Effectively collect relevant data and apply learnings from external evaluations to inform best practice and (if applicable) elevate project delivery

Some concerns

1

The bid raises concerns that the organisation does not have the culture, people and processes in place to do one or more of the following:

• Effectively monitor the delivery of the project, ensuring that quality of delivery keeps to a high standard

• Add value to programme evaluation, working with DCMS and external evaluators

• Effectively collect relevant data and apply learnings from external evaluations to inform best practice and (if applicable) elevate project delivery

Serious concerns

0

The bid raises concerns that the organisation does not have the culture, people and processes in place to do all of the following:

• Effectively monitor the delivery of the project, ensuring that quality of delivery keeps to a high standard

• Add value to programme evaluation, working with DCMS and external evaluators

• Effectively collect relevant data and apply learnings from external evaluations to inform best practice and (if applicable) elevate project delivery

4. Legacy and Sustainability

• Assessment question: How convincing is the bidder’s approach to ensuring the benefits of the pilot are sustained beyond the lifetime of the grant? 

• Weighting: This section is worth 10% of the proposal assessment.

• The appraiser must consider whether the bidder:

• has set out how participants will be supported to maintain confidence, friendships and positive social connections after leaving the pilot.

• has demonstrated strong referral pathways and links to local services and community organisations and other sources of ongoing support. 

• has provided a credible approach to capturing, sharing and applying learning from the pilot. 

• has set out convincing plans for how successful approaches, partnerships or delivery models could continue beyond grant funding. 

Assessment scoring:

Excellent

4

The bid gives you full confidence that the organisation has a highly convincing approach to ensuring the benefits of the pilot are sustained beyond the lifetime of the grant, including how it will: 

• Effectively support participants beyond the pilot.

• Effectively enable participants to maintain positive social connections after participation ends 

• Effectively demonstrate a credible approach to capturing, sharing and applying learning from the pilot.

• That the organisation has convincing plans for how successful approaches, partnerships or delivery models could continue beyond grant funding.

Good

3

The bid gives you confidence that the organisation has a highly convincing approach to ensuring the benefits of the pilot are sustained beyond the lifetime of the grant, including how it will: 

• Effectively support participants beyond the pilot.

• Effectively enable participants to maintain positive social connections after participation ends 

• Effectively demonstrate a credible approach to capturing, sharing and applying learning from the pilot.

• That the organisation has convincing plans for how successful approaches, partnerships or delivery models could continue beyond grant funding.

Satisfactory

2

The bid gives you limited confidence that the organisation has a highly convincing approach to ensuring the benefits of the pilot are sustained beyond the lifetime of the grant, including how it will: 

• Effectively support participants beyond the pilot.

• Effectively enable participants to maintain positive social connections after participation ends 

• Effectively demonstrate a credible approach to capturing, sharing and applying learning from the pilot.

• That the organisation has convincing plans for how successful approaches, partnerships or delivery models could continue beyond grant funding.

Some concerns

1

The bid raises concerns that the organisation does not have a highly convincing approach to ensuring the benefits of the pilot are sustained beyond the lifetime of the grant, in one or more of the following areas:

• Effectively support participants beyond the pilot.

• Effectively enable participants to maintain positive social connections after participation ends 

• Effectively demonstrate a credible approach to capturing, sharing and applying learning from the pilot.

• That the organisation has convincing plans for how successful approaches, partnerships or delivery models could continue beyond grant funding.

Serious concerns

0

The bid raises concerns that the organisation has not demonstrated a highly convincing approach to ensuring the benefits of the pilot are sustained beyond the lifetime of the grant in any of the following areas:

• Effectively support participants beyond the pilot.

• Effectively enable participants to maintain positive social connections after participation ends 

• Effectively demonstrate a credible approach to capturing, sharing and applying learning from the pilot.

• That the organisation has convincing plans for how successful approaches, partnerships or delivery models could continue beyond grant funding.

5. Project Finances

• Assessment question: Does the bid ensure the Gaming Pilot Fund grant expenditure is accounted for accurately, transparently and provide value for money? 

• Weighting: This section is worth 20% of the proposal assessment.

• The appraiser must consider whether the bidder:

• has robust internal financial management and control processes to monitor and account for the funding

• has a clear understanding of subsidy control measures

• has clear safeguards to prevent fraud and financial risks to an acceptable level

Assessment scoring:

Excellent

4

The bid gives full confidence that the organisation will ensure the Gaming Pilot Fund grant expenditure is accounted for accurately, transparently and provide value for money by:

• Clearly setting out its projected cost and budget

• Clearly setting out its financial management systems

• Clearly setting out its plans to utilise the funding effectively and maximise value for money

Good

3

The bid gives confidence that the organisation will ensure the Gaming Pilot Fund grant expenditure is accounted for accurately, transparently and provide value for money by:

• Clearly setting out its projected cost and budget

• Clearly setting out its financial management systems

• Clearly setting out its plans to utilise the funding effectively and maximise value for money

Satisfactory

2

The bid gives limited confidence that the organisation will ensure the Gaming Pilot Fund grant expenditure is accounted for accurately, transparently and provide value for money by:

• Clearly setting out its projected cost and budget

• Clearly setting out its financial management systems

• Clearly setting out its plans to utilise the funding effectively and maximise value for money

Some concerns

1

The bid raises some concerns that the organisation will not ensure the Gaming Pilot Fund grant expenditure is accounted for accurately, transparently and provide value for money by:

• Clearly setting out its projected cost and budget

• Clearly setting out its financial management systems

• Clearly setting out its plans to utilise the funding effectively and maximise value for money

Serious concerns

0

The bid raises serious concerns that the organisation will not ensure the Gaming Pilot Fund grant expenditure is accounted for accurately, transparently and provide value for money by:

• Clearly setting out its projected cost and budget

• Clearly setting out its financial management systems

• Clearly setting out its plans to utilise the funding effectively and maximise value for money