Guidance

YIF Phase 2 intermediary grant maker competition: clarification questions and answers

Updated 14 March 2022

Applies to England

The following clarification questions were received by 4 March or asked during the engagement event on 9 March. Responses are found below.

Are private sector partners or private sector subcontractors permitted to support the intermediary grant maker to deliver aspects of the fund management?

Yes, where a joint application is made we require that a VCSE or youth sector organisation is the Lead Partner, but they can bring in partners or subcontractors from other sectors.

Please clarify whether the Intermediary Grant Maker (IGM) must have experience of delivery in the youth sector or can they be an experienced grant maker that has a track record of funding youth sector projects?

The Intermediary Grant Maker must evidence that they have an understanding of, and experience of working with the youth sector, as well as substantial experience of grant management and delivery.

The guidance identifies that the funds must be disbursed by the end of March 2025. Please clarify when the funds must be spent by the grant recipient?

All funded activity must also be complete or unreliant on YIF funding, and funds spent by the onward grant recipient, by 31 March 2025.

Obtaining planning permission for new builds and alterations to buildings can be a long process that will have a significant impact on the delivery timeframes for these projects. This can often take years. How will this impact the disbursement of funds if planning permission is not obtained until after 31 March 2025? What arrangements would be envisaged for projects that overshoot March 2025?

Applications for capital funding should be assessed based on the viability of successful delivery by the end of March 2025, including obtaining planning permission in the available time. Those projects that are not likely to receive planning permission with enough time to spend funding and complete their projects should not be awarded funding. We will also consider the sequencing of funding arrangements, where YIF funding for a project can be sequenced ahead of other investment sources and match contributions to manage potential project overruns into the 2025/26 financial year.

A desirable requirement for the IGM is the ability to leverage match funding. Can this funding be matched debt such as a social investment loan or a bank loan?

We can consider repayable finance options as match contributions, provided that extensive due diligence is carried out on potential investors and there is sufficient evidence that these debts can be repaid.

In terms of the delivery budget, will funding be available for such activities as research – data and insights, gap analysis, etc., to underpin the targeting of this funding?

Applicants can present a costed case for initial analysis, as part of their grant-making bid. However, applicants should note that DCMS will have conducted its own regional engagement prior to the launch of the fund and an independent evaluation of the YIF Phase 2 will be undertaken, with an external research organisation commissioned to undertake this. Applicants for the role of Intermediary Grant Maker should include in their budget and funding request costs relating to their participation in this evaluation and engagement with the evaluation partner, including costs to enable the collection of data from funded organisations and young people, gathering of project monitoring data, and participation in research activity themselves.

The guidance refers to the lowest cost bid being used as a benchmark in determining the appointment of the IGM. Please clarify the proportionality of this criteria?

The cost of the bid will form 30% of the assessment weighting for the written application stage, with the lowest price serving as a benchmark. The lowest price bid will not necessarily be awarded the grant if, for instance, the applicant scores higher against other assessment criteria. The weighting of other assessment criteria is outlined in the Specification of Requirements.

If a consortium approach is required, is funding available for the management of that consortium?

Applicants are responsible for determining the most appropriate approach to delivering their proposal, whether that is as a sole applicant or a joint application such as a consortium. Applicants should include in their budget and funding request all costs relating to the delivery of the YIF Phase 2, including any required for management of a joint approach to delivery.

Please clarify whether the £80m of resource costs must be applied to a capital project that is given a grant or whether they can also be applied to projects that are established and require resource funding to sustain and/or improve their services and activities?

All programme resource funding must be linked to capital-funded projects as early-stage/seed funding for services and activities delivered from those facilities. Resource grants must: create, expand or improve positive activities for young people, and/or enable youth organisations to develop sustainable funding models. Please note that there will be up to £80 million of resource funding, including for fund delivery.

Please provide confirmation that although the onwards grants end on 31 March 2025, and report at that point, that the IGM can claim management and administration costs for the assessment of reports and participation in post-event assurance activities up to 30 June 2025.

It is anticipated that the Intermediary Grant Maker will be able to claim costs laid out in the Grant Funding Agreement for management and administration of the fund beyond 31 March 2025 and up to 30 June 2025, including for participation in the evaluation and post-event assurance activities.

If DCMS are looking to “increase the number of regular positive activities undertaken by young people in the targeted areas by 45,000 per year, by 2026/27 through this fund” – what is the mechanism for collecting data on this after 30 June 2025, given the length of capital projects and the activities ending in 2025?

An external evaluation partner will be commissioned to deliver the YIF Phase 2 evaluation, including beyond the IGM’s grant funding agreement completion date. The selected IGM will be required to work closely with this evaluation partner to support with data collection from onward grant recipients, such as by providing contact details for all grant recipients.

KPI: 100% of onward grants awarded and Grant Agreements sent out within 2 months of a funding round’s closure, with 100% of funding disbursed by 31 March 2025 - When can we expect payments from DCMS, knowing that projects are intended to start from October? Will this be in tranches?

A payment schedule will be discussed with the selected IGM and regular payment milestones agreed, to ensure timely management and disbursement of funding to onward grant recipients.

With the programme expected to commence in Summer 2022 and the successful IGM being informed in July 2022, the IGM will have a very short period of time to ensure that they have the operational frameworks and capacity in place to deliver. However, this capacity can be allocated/built up quickly once a decision has been made. Are DCMS accepting that a period will be needed for this to take place or is the expectation that the capacity required is available from the point of agreement?

Delivery at pace is critical in order to disburse all the funding in the period available. We therefore expect that the capacity required is available from the point of formal agreement. However, DCMS expects to notify the preferred IGM applicant in April, with the formal appointment made in the summer, giving time for the IGM to build up the capacity and framework needed.

Can the revenue grants be awarded in advance of the capital grants to enable organisations to submit applications, e.g. to cover planning applications, stakeholder engagement, youth engagement & potentially clearing a site for MMC and similar things?

No, all YIF resource grants must be linked to capital grants, to be used as early-stage or seed funding for youth activities from new or redeveloped facilities, and so cannot precede capital grants. However, costs associated with the planning of facilities can often be capitalised. We will also encourage applicants to secure match funding to further the programme’s objectives, which could be used to develop quality applications in the ways outlined.

Can the programme run on beyond the deployment period to allow for delays, monitoring and evaluation? And would any delay to the programme closure have to be funded by the delivery partners own resources?

All programme delivery must be completed and all funding claimed by 31 March 2025, except for those elements outlined in the Statement of Requirements, including the evaluation, post-event assurance and final report from the IGM. Any funds not disbursed by this point will be retained by the government as an underspend.

Is match funding being sought primarily to resource the management of the fund, or to match delivery of additional capital and / or revenue grants?

Match funding is sought primarily for additional programme funding, ideally resource funding, rather than for delivery of the fund.

What would the definition of regular positive activities be in Objective 1? For example, would they have to have been consistently running and well attended and if so, how long for?

The phrase ‘regular positive activities’ is widely used across the youth sector and measures each activity a young person takes part in. Across multiple years, the number of young people reached on a monthly basis within each year is referred to as the total number of ‘regular positive activities’, in order to avoid double counting young people who attend over multiple years.

The published timetable (section 3 of the IGM specification of requirements) states: “Provide a final list of all proposed grantees to DCMS for information; Awarding of grant funds to recipients, including signing Grant Agreements; Grant recipients begin delivery of funded projects – all October 2022”. Please confirm that this is all for round 1 of the programme, and that the expectation from DCMS is that there will be quarterly ‘rounds’, as you have verbally indicated.

Yes, the expectation is that the IGM will deliver multiple rounds of funding, up to four per year, between 2022/23 and 2024/25. This timetable item should refer to ‘round 1’ of funding only by that deadline.

Section 5 of the IGM specification of requirements describes 5 different elements / ‘types’ of facility funded through YIF phase 2. Does DCMS have any sense of the relative proportions of these in relation to total funding available, or number of facilities of each kind?

The YIF will be led by the demand from young people and the youth sector in each eligible local area, so we will not be specifying how many of each ‘type’ of facility should be funded. We expect to deliver up to 300 facilities across the lifetime of the fund.

Section 7 (Strategic / operational project plan) of the IGM specification of requirements refers to “Receiving, sifting and assessing grant applications weekly whilst fund is open and Preparing a weekly shortlist of organisations awarded funding for review by the assessment panel.” We assume that the use of ‘weekly’ is an error and relates to phase 1?

Apologies, the reference to ‘weekly’ here is indeed a mistake. The frequency of sifting and assessing applications will be determined by the number of funding rounds her year, and similarly the frequency of reporting requirements to DCMS will be set as part of a performance monitoring schedule in collaboration with the selected IGM.

Query within the application form, under section ‘3.3 Programme delivery’: Is the expectation that this answer will be expanded for a heading for every month across the lifetime of the programme?

No, we ask that applicants just complete this question for the months listed (August to December 2022), as an indication of the activities and outputs required for the first round of funding.

The total allocation (£266m capital and up to £80m resource funding including for fund delivery) is over three years (2022/23 to 2024/25). Verbally, DCMS have indicated that resource / revenue funding for successful applicants will be ‘back loaded’ to support capital builds. Is there any greater clarity about the split over the 3 years, to enable us to develop an appropriate, corresponding, cost model?

At this point, we are unable to share the full breakdown of onward grant funding per financial year, as this is still subject to change and government financial planning. However, we expect the first year to be capital funding, with capital funding increasing in years two and three (to account for the shorter delivery time in year one). Resource funding will be weighted towards years two and three. Please note, however, that in order to develop an appropriate delivery cost model, IGM applicants should consider the administrative burden required in year one to set up the fund, including significant stakeholder engagement required to publicise it and support bid development, as well as the preparation of detailed guidance and application documentation, and work expected to be completed together with construction consultants to facilitate the use of a supplier framework by onward grantees for purchase of standard modular builds. Additionally, it may be reasonable to assume that the first application deadline will see a significant number of bids to be assessed.

We believe that, to develop truly sustainable facilities and activities, meeting the needs of young people within a left-behind area, will require strong collaboration and partnerships across organisations and sectors. What role do you see the DCMS team having in developing and supporting these collaborations and partnerships? What role do you see the IGM having in developing these collaborations and partnerships, including supporting the capacity to develop strong, sustainable bids?

We see this as a key responsibility of the IGM, once formally appointed, with the support of the DCMS team. However, in readiness for the fund’s launch in the summer, DCMS is already engaging regularly with local stakeholders in the youth and VCSE sectors and with Local Authorities in eligible areas, to raise awareness of the fund, stimulate demand, and support potential applicants to prepare partnership proposals. We have built an engagement team which we expect to scale back once the IGM is appointed, but will retain a core team to support the IGM with this.

We strongly believe that, within some left-behind-areas, support will be required to enable potential bidders to access professional services (architects, legal etc) to develop credible bids and partnerships. This is vital to ensure that it is not just areas / organisations with the greatest capital and capacity that are able to benefit from YIF phase 2. Has DCMS given any consideration of making a ‘seed’ or ‘development’ fund available from the total resource funding to allow local areas to develop quality applications? Is there flexibility for the IGM to do so?

DCMS does not currently have any funding committed for capacity building or development of projects in this manner. We expect resource funding to be weighted towards years two and three, rather than year one. However, the selected IGM is encouraged to offer or secure some match funding to further the programme’s objectives, and has the flexibility to direct some of this to capacity building.

What role does DCMS envisage of the IGM to support development of quality applications from left-behind-areas – both in terms of staff resource and funding?

It is a key responsibility of the IGM to support the development of quality applications from left-behind areas, in a fair and unbiased way, such as by developing resources and workshops to support potential applicants in these areas to develop quality bids. IGM applicants should include in their applications the level of staff resourcing and funding they require to perform this role over the course of the programme.

The timescales for IGM submissions are very short and delivery timetable (opening for bids by the summer) is challenging, both for the IGM and organisations wishing to bid. How will the timescales allow for meaningful partnerships to develop which will improve the chances of success of the overall programme. How open are DCMS to reviewing this timeline, delaying the fund opening until later in Autumn 2022?

Due to the need for the full £368m of funding to be delivered by the end of the 2024/25 financial year, delivery at pace is critical. The IGM must have sufficient capacity to deliver the fund at pace in the timescales available. To delay the fund’s launch until the autumn would significantly increase the risk of an underspend and of the fund not meeting its objectives. DCMS is already engaging with local stakeholders in the youth and VCSE sectors and with Local Authorities in eligible areas, to raise awareness of the fund, stimulate demand, and support potential applicants to prepare partnership proposals ready for the opening of the fund in the summer. It should also be noted that we anticipate quarterly rounds of bids, so that time is available for partnerships to be formed and developed bids to be submitted beyond the first round of funding.

Clearly, MMC is considered an important part of the overall YIF phase 2 programme. When applicants are bidding to the fund, are you envisaging that they will already have identified MMC as their preferred method of build?

Yes. As part of the YIF offer, we are looking to develop a standard MMC/modular product of about 200-300 sqm that could be an instant local youth hub, suitable for local groups and small youth services. It would be a standardised product, built offsite and assembled on site. DCMS, and when appointed the IGM, are publicising this as part of stakeholder engagement discussions to make potential applicants aware of this option and its benefits. However, this is only one potential approach and we are anticipating a mixture of build types, including other innovative approaches and redevelopments, as best suits the local need.

Will YIF phase 2 applicant organisations have the opportunity to engage MMC consultants in advance of bidding, and what role do you envisage the IGM will have in making those connections?

Yes, applicants will be encouraged to engage MMC construction consultants as soon as possible. As part of the YIF offer, we are looking to develop a standard MMC/modular product of about 200-300 sqm that could be an instant local youth hub, suitable for local groups and small youth services. The selected IGM will be expected to work with construction consultants appointed by DCMS to facilitate the use of a supplier framework by onward grant applicants for purchase of standard modular builds.

The specification outlines that the ‘funding award (following internal government approvals)’ won’t be confirmed, and an agreement in place, with the IGM, until July 2022. The specification also states that “Fund setup, including launch of application portal for round 1 of funding” is expected July – September 2022. How do DCMS see an IGM managing the set up phase – with the costs and risks associated with doing so ‘at risk’ - without an agreement in place?

The launch date of YIF Phase 2 has yet to be confirmed, with indicative delivery timelines subject to change. However, we do not expect the IGM to commit expenditure prior to any grant funding agreement being in place. We do expect that the capacity required by the IGM is available from the point of formal agreement, to enable delivery at pace thereafter.

Reporting and evaluation - How will the IGM feed into the evaluation methodology feasibility study? To what degree will the evaluation (and supporting monitoring) be expected to identify improvements in delivery quality and outcomes (changes for young people) from the YIF spend - beyond the improved spaces and increases in activities? If quality and outcomes are to be evaluated, do they have initial ideas on what measures will be of most importance?

The IGM will not be expected to feed into the feasibility study for the YIF Phase 2 evaluation, which we expect to be complete by summer 2022. As noted in the Specification of Requirements, YIF is hoping to drive positive outcomes for young people, including improved mental and physical wellbeing, and skills for life and work. These will be the key areas of focus for the evaluation. However, we are still developing the exact measures and methods that the evaluation will use, and these will be shaped by the findings of the feasibility study as well.

Does DCMS have an expectation regarding the environmental impact or assessment of build projects? Will there be a development framework relating to how project bids will be assessed?

DCMS are working with colleagues and experts to define expectations of what the youth sector can deliver in terms of environmental impact. However, we anticipate that capital projects will have key sustainable features in line with net zero principles, in order to drive two of YIF’s objectives to: improve the environmental sustainability of the youth sector estate, and reduce the environmental impact of construction activities across the programme.

Do DCMS plan to open up again for further additional questions or for those that may have missed the engagement sessions?

We have collated all questions emailed in and those asked during the engagement session, and published written responses here for all potential applicants. There will not, then, be further opportunities to ask questions.

What are the expectations with regards to project matched funding and the role of the IGM?

We will encourage applicants to YIF to secure their own match funding and in-kind contributions to further the programme’s objectives. The match funding requirement will be proportionate to the size of grant awarded. The IGM will have an essential role in securing national and local match funding commitments to the programme, and ideally, will have the ability to offer some match funding themselves.