First and foremost, thank you to everyone who took the time to apply. We know how much time and emotional energy is invested in the application process, and that these funding decisions really matter. 

Whilst this year’s grants budget has been boosted by our Rescue the Roots fundraising campaign, demand still far exceeds what we have available. We received requests totalling almost £30 million, compared to a total budget of just under £5 million. As a result, many high‑quality proposals could not be supported.

Below, we outline:

• How Youth Music’s priorities and equitable decision‑making approach shaped our decisions
• Common reasons applications were not taken forward.

Key stats for this round

• We received 183 expressions of interest, requesting almost £30 million in total.
• The budget available for Catalyser Fund Round 6 is just under £5 million.
• Around two‑thirds of expressions of interest were turned down at the first stage.
• Once final decisions are made at the next stage, the overall success rate for Round 6 will be around 25% (up from 16% last year).

How we made our decisions

When reviewing applications, we consider whether a proposal is a good fit with the Catalyser Fund criteria. Alongside this, we review the skills, experience and capacity of the organisation applying.

From there, decisions are shaped by our equitable approach to funding. We aim to build a balanced portfolio that covers different:

• Regions and places
• Age ranges
• Types of activity
• Barriers faced by children and young people.

This means we don’t make decisions on applications in isolation, as we also consider how each proposal sits alongside others we fund.

Our grant‑making is participatory, and we involve external advisors in decision‑making to ensure a breadth of perspectives.

Which organisations are a good fit for Catalyser?

The Catalyser Fund is designed for established organisations with a track record of delivering inclusive music‑making with children and young people facing barriers.

Successful organisations tended to show that they:

• Had experience delivering the kind of work they were proposing
• Were already embedded in the communities they wanted to work with
• Could demonstrate demand for their activity.

Organisations that showed a proven track record and existing relationships with young people were more likely to progress.

Organisations newer to this work, with a short track record in youth or music provision, or were proposing something significantly different from their existing activity were likely declined. If this applies to you, Trailblazer Fund may be a better fit.

Why were the majority of applications declined?

It’s hard to say no to funding applications when most of the proposals we receive are fundable. And especially now, when the need for youth music work is so high, and the organisations delivering this vital activity face a funding crisis. 

In most cases, applications were declined due to the level of competition and limited budget, rather than a lack of quality.

As part of building an equitable and balanced portfolio, many strong proposals missed out. Key factors included:

• Regional demand: Applications were high across the country, but especially in London, which accounted for around 20% of all expressions of interest. This made London significantly more competitive than other regions.
• Funding themes: ‘Children and Young People Facing Barriers’ and ‘Young Adults’ were the most competitive areas, as we already invest heavily in this work, and receive large numbers of applications. In terms of funding themes, we prioritised proposals focused on Early Years and Youth Justice. We also prioritised work with d/Deaf, Disabled and neurodivergent young people aligned to the social model of disability. We regularly update our current priorities page with information about funding themes.

How equity shaped our decisions

We aim to invest our funding where it is needed most. Applications with little or no targeting towards children and young people facing barriers were therefore unlikely to be taken forward.

When it comes to organisations, we prioritised those that:

• Had an annual turnover between £100,000 and £250,000. These organisations are large enough to demonstrate a track record, but were identified in our funding crisis survey as the most at risk of closure. 
  • The median turnover of organisations invited to stage two was £236,000.
• Did not have other sources of core funding. 
  • This meant it was harder to prioritise Arts Council England National Portfolio Organisations or Music Education Hub Lead Organisations, unless their proposals focused on areas of very high need, involved strong partnerships, and operated at significant scale.
  • Work based in schools, or activity closely aligned with Music Education Hub core provision (such as whole‑class instrumental learning or 1:1 tuition), was not prioritised, as there is already substantial other investment in this type of work.
• We also need to ensure diversity amongst the range of organisations we fund, and give newer organisations the chance to grow through having access to Catalyser’s sustained funding. Around one-third of those invited to the next stage don’t have a current grant with us. We are proud of our long‑term relationships with organisations, and the impact this sustained investment can have – however we also need to ensure that we’re not a ‘closed shop’ and that other organisations can benefit from the sustained investment that Catalyser offers.

Diversity of leadership

Ideally, we want those running organisations and delivering activities to reflect and understand the communities they serve, so diversity and lived experience is taken into consideration in our funding decisions. We often see older, more established organisations having less diverse leadership than those newer to the portfolio, and encourage all organisations to continually evolve their leadership and staff teams. 

If you are looking to increase diversity and representation in your organisation you may find the IDEA Self-Assessment Survey useful to audit existing practices across your organisation. You can access the survey on Youth Music’s IDEA Hub. 

Place based equity

We also take account of ‘Place’:

• Each region is allocated a budget range to ensure all parts of the country receive a minimum level of investment. This also prevents over‑investment in areas with the highest application volumes.
• Local authorities are prioritised using a combination of indicators, including population levels of children and young people, deprivation, rurality and existing levels of investment.

What made a strong proposal?

The strongest applications:

• Offered depth and quality of experience for participants
• Embedded access meaningfully within the programme design
• Were led by staff with lived experience aligned to the communities they intended to work with (including young people in peer leadership roles).

In particular:

• Proposals for new activity without evidence of demand were less likely to progress.
• One‑off or short‑term activity was not prioritised. 
• Projects working with d/Deaf, Disabled or neurodivergent children were not prioritised unless we could see them grounded in the social model of disability.

Youth voice

Strong proposals also demonstrated effective youth voice and participation, showing clearly what had been learned through co‑design and how that learning influenced the programme. Many also explained how Catalyser funding would help take their youth participation practice to the next level, and built in resources to make that happen. Our Youth Voice Hub offers advice for those looking to develop this further.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

We’re happy for organisations to use AI to support the application process, and can see how it helps reduce workload. However, some organisations appeared to rely wholly on AI to create their programmes of activity. This meant we were often reading very similar proposals, and were not clear how much personal expertise had informed what you wanted to do. The best examples of AI use were where organisations had used AI to improve, rather then create, their applications. 

If you use AI to help you draft your application, please make sure it’s an honest reflection of your work and plans. AI generated responses often read as generic, which makes it hard to understand who you are as organisation. As a result, applications are less convincing. Remember, you’re the expert!

Scale of proposals

We received a number of applications requesting relatively low amounts (around £30k–£40k). In many cases, the proposed activity did not fully meet Catalyser’s expectations at that scale. We generally don’t recommend applying below £40k unless you have significant match funding in place.

At the other end of the scale, some applications requested £200k–£300k, but the scope of activity didn’t always match the level of funding requested, for example where there were small participant numbers, limited activity strands, or short delivery periods.

Making the case for your experience

We review all links and attachments provided, including websites and social media. Due to the volume of applications, we weren’t able to follow up where information was missing or links were broken, so it’s important to check everything carefully before submitting.

As Catalyser is aimed at experienced organisations, we’re looking for clear, relevant evidence of your track record in the work you’re proposing. Often organisations submitted something very general about their organisation and their work, which wasn’t always related to music, or the young people they wanted to work with. We strongly advise that you ensure the additional information you submit really captures your work, and is relevant to the project you’re proposing. 

Organisations currently or recently funded by Youth Music

When reviewing applications from organisations currently or recently funded by us we wanted to see: 

• Clear evidence of ongoing impact and learning, and that you are continually reflecting and understanding what works
• When it needs to, your practice is moving on, based on learning from your young people and the wider sector
• Evidence that previous Youth Music feedback or advice had been taken forward.

While we understand the need for continued funding, we also need to see that work remains relevant and responsive to the needs of young people and communities.

Communication of your practices is important. You might know some of the Youth Music team, but you should assume the person reading your application has no prior knowledge of your organisation. This is because multiple people, including external advisors, are involved in our decision‑making, and your application is reviewed against a standard framework aligned the Catalyser Fund criteria.

Previous grant management also forms part of our assessment: a history of late reporting, poor communication or project management may have contributed to rejection.

Clear presentation of plans 

Being clear about what you’ll do is important. Applications were strongest when they followed the guidance closely and addressed each question directly. Particularly in video or presentation formats. While we try to read between the lines, proposals that are unclear or lack detail are harder to assess.

It can help to ask someone else to review your submission before you send it.

To reassure applicants: we do not assess spelling, grammar, layout, production quality, or use of standard English.

If you identify as d/Deaf, Disabled or neurodivergent, you can also apply to our Application Access Fund for support with your application.

Why we’re unable to prioritise work in schools

We are not able to fund schools or academies directly, including primary and secondary schools, PRUs or special schools. We also cannot fund GCSE or A‑level music, curriculum provision, whole‑class tuition in schools, or individual instrumental lessons delivered in school settings.

Youth Music exists to support music‑making in community settings and outside of formal education. Given the pressure on our funding, we’re unable to prioritise school‑based work, even where it is well targeted and delivered by external organisations. As a result, most school‑based proposals were declined.

What next?

You can sign up to our monthly newsletter for updates on future funding rounds and Exchange, our free online learning programme.

Upcoming deadlines

• Catalyser Fund Round 6: Organisations invited to submit a full application have around six weeks and will hear the outcome in late August 2026. This stage remains competitive, with an anticipated success rate of around 68%.
• Trailblazer Fund: Next deadline is 28 August 2026, with awards made in December 2026.
• Catalyser Fund: Next round will open in Spring 2027 (date to be confirmed), with awards in Autumn 2027.

The funding deadlines page on our website has all the latest information. 

Still unsure why your application wasn’t taken forward?

If, after reading this article, you’re still unclear why your application didn’t progress to stage two, you’re welcome to email us at grants@youthmusic.org.uk. Please note that due to the volume of requests, responses may take some time. Thank you for your patience and understanding.