Award of grants 2022-23: Round 2

The Panel considers that, as much as possible, grants from the Fund should help further a station’s financial stability and future sustainability. Therefore, proposals to promote long-term financial security and posts which could become self-sustaining were favoured by the Panel over applications for other support roles.

Regarding the applications considered in this funding round, the Panel would like to make the following points:

Feedback

The Panel does not provide individual feedback as a matter of course. Verbal feedback will be available, should stations wish to contact Ofcom. The Panel would strongly recommend that stations request feedback if they re-submit proposals for the same post or project in the future. In this round the Panel had already rejected one application on three previous occasions.

Read the guidance notes

A small number of stations requested grants for items such as capital expenditure although the guidance made it clear that the Fund does not support these requests.

Provide all the information requested

The standard application form clearly sets out that a job description should be included, when applying for funding for a post. Some applicants failed to provide the information requested, including job descriptions and financial information. Applicants should refer to the guidance notes for further detail on what should be provided.

Clarity about posts

When applying for a post to be funded, applicants should explain how they have arrived at the proposed salary. A small number of applicants failed to state whether posts were full time or part time, or whether the sum proposed included National Insurance, pension payments etc.

Applicants are also encouraged to consider likely costs at the time of employment. For instance, several applicants based their proposed salary costs on the National Living Wage, but the figures used would be out of date when the role was appointed.

A clear focus for posts

The Panel favoured applications for posts whose job descriptions showed focus. Unsuccessful applications were those where the post-holder had a huge range of responsibilities including volunteer management, programming and even presenting daily programmes, alongside revenue development. These were often applications for Station Manager posts. The Panel was unlikely to favour such applications because the post-holder was unlikely to devote sufficient time to income generation, therefore making the investment unsustainable.

Requests for repeat funding

A small number of stations applied for extended funding for posts which have previously been funded. The Panel makes decisions based upon the evidence provided by each applicant. In requests for repeat funding, the Panel would expect to see evidence such as the performance of the post-holder to date (including income raised, for example).

Clarity about a station’s financial position

Some applications contained financial information which appeared to show large unrestricted reserves or significant previous years’ trading profit. Some applicants wisely provided narrative information about such items but others did not. Applicants should be aware that any lack of clarity potentially disadvantages their application, as it may give a misleading impression of the state of their finances. The Panel also noted that some stations are part of wider organisations which may be able to offer financial support; some stations were not clear about their relationship to these larger organisations.

Sell your success stories

The Panel enjoyed reading applications which described the station concisely and to good effect, particularly those stations which were able to demonstrate their excellent work and social value.