We want to start by saying a massive thank you to everyone who took the time to apply. We were impressed with the:

• Quality of applications we received.
• Creativity we saw in the proposals.
• Sheer number of organisations committed to shifting the scene for Disabled young people. 

We know these decisions have a real impact for organisations, and how much care is put into crafting high-quality bids. We were only able to invite 23 organisations out of 150 through to stage 2 (around 16% of all applications). This made our decision-making job very tough. Most proposals met the criteria and presented programmes that aligned with the aims of Shift the Scene. 

This article provides more information about how we prioritised applications, how organisations stood out, and common areas for development.

What we looked for in each application

Decisions focused on:

• How closely proposals aligned with the Shift the Scene principles.
• The depth of relationships with Disabled people.
• The potential for sustained change and pushing boundaries. 

In many cases, the difference between advancing and not advancing were very small.

Applications were closely reviewed, and discussed by our Shift the Scene shortlisting team. The majority of this team – external advisors paid a fee by Youth Music to participate – identify as Disabled. 

Supporting those who face the biggest barriers

Equity is one of the main drivers behind Youth Music’s decisions. When most proposals are strong, we prioritise those with the greatest structural barriers or least existing access to funding. We aim to give support to those who need it the most. 

Alongside this, we want the final Shift the Scene community to contain a diverse mix of representation across location, participant and workforce demographics and access needs, organisation size, organisation leadership, and art forms. 

Disabled voices leading the way

Shift the Scene was designed to create spaces where Disabled voices lead.  We saw this in two ways:

• Firstly, in the way that co-design showed up in the work. 
• Second, where the organisation is Disabled-led or well-represented by Disabled people in its workforce. 

When it comes to co-design, the strongest applications were able to: 

• Demonstrate experience in co-design, with practical examples of how they had done it, and how it had shaped the proposal. This was backed up by evidence of young people’s views or voices within the proposal itself.
• Clearly articulate what co-design would look like on this programme. For example, with specifics about the creative mechanisms they would use to make this happen.

We prioritised organisations with high ratios of Disabled people in their workforce (or those who were already making progress to increase representation).

• There was a much higher number of Disabled-led organisations invited to interview than those who applied (just 22% of applicant organisations were Disabled-led, compared with 59% of those who made it to interview). 
• Overall, Disabled and diverse-led organisations tended to align better with the Shift the Scene principles, as it was clear how lived experience had influenced organisational cultures and practices. 

Balancing art forms across the programme

We wanted to bring through programmes working across a range of artforms. We received the highest number of applications from projects working in combined arts, theatre, and music. As a result, competition was fiercer amongst these forms (and particularly music, which will only receive a small amount of final investment). 

Types of organisation 

Through our equity-lens, we tended to prioritise smaller organisations. The median turnover of those invited to interview is £276,000. And competition was tougher for those with a current Youth Music grant. These factors meant that we turned down some high profile, larger and experienced organisations who’ve been shifting the scene for years. 

Importance of track record

We wanted to partner with experienced organisations. This meant we expected to see a clear track record of:

• Co-design.
• Delivery of creative activities.
• Working with Disabled children and young people in a meaningful and targeted way.
• Taking a pro-active anti-ableist stance.

Organisations that were new to any of these areas were less likely to proceed. However, we want to acknowledge organisations’ commitment to learning and developing across these areas. 

Access and inclusion

All applicants were asked to provide an existing piece of work or content that demonstrated their approach to access and inclusion. Some exemplary examples were submitted. We saw lots of examples of creative outputs, but within these we looked for:

• Examples that were easy to read or interact with. 
• Signs of how access and inclusion had been embedded in the work. 

The best ones demonstrated deep expertise and experience. Many showed how organisations were pushing boundaries or taking active anti-ableist stances. Some demonstrated a very high benchmark when it comes to access (often with creativity embedded in the access itself). Others showed how access and inclusion could be improved by considering intersectionality. 

One criterion was to ensure the safety, wellbeing and access needs of staff and participants. Many applications showed how this would occur for participants, but it wasn’t always clear how it applied to staff.

Creative ambitions

We were keen to see programmes that were creatively ambitious and provided sustained opportunities. This was in response to our Excluded by Design research which found lower and shorter-term participation amongst young Disabled people. So programmes with a low depth of engagement, or that worked with different groups every year, tended to be declined. 

Sometimes it was hard for us to tell what the creative activity would look like, which made it harder for these applications to stand out. 

Some organisations were highly skilled at working with Disabled people but didn’t have a creative specialism or track record. This limited progression pathways. 

Partnerships

The best proposals had solid partners on board, with a clear role that would add value to the creative programme. Many letters praised the work of the applicant and committed to working in partnership. 

But proposals were stronger where letters outlined shared aims, included specifics about ‘how’, and showed that roles and responsibilities had been carefully considered. 

Balancing representation

We always aim for a good geographical spread in the work that we fund. 27% of all applications were from London, resulting in a lower success rate in the capital. Whilst we’ve always had caps on funding levels in London, we recognise that it’s particularly challenging right now, as funding is increasingly rebalanced to other parts of the country. 

There was also high representation of young people aged 16–30 which we tried to balance. This meant that young adults projects also saw lower levels of success.

We appreciate that these factors are frustrating when they are outside of an organisation’s control but want to be transparent about the situation.

Next steps

To everyone who applied, thank you for the care and thought you put into your applications. We’re encouraged by the range of work happening across the sector and by the commitment organisations showed to learning and developing their practice.

If you are in the process of improving Disabled representation within your organisation, we urge you to keep going and see what changes you can make within your existing funds. 

We thank you for being part of the Shift the Scene community and look forward to keeping in touch as the work progresses.