# Grant Programme Guidelines: [Programme name]

> Grant programme guidelines tell applicants and assessors how a
> funding programme works: what it is for, who can apply, which costs
> are eligible, how indirect costs are treated, how applications are
> scored, what conditions come with an award, and what recipients must
> report. The structure is neutral so any public funder or foundation
> can use it, with dated national annexes: the US Uniform Guidance (2
> CFR part 200, as amended with effect from 1 October 2024, checked on
> eCFR on 2026-10-30) and the UK Government Functional Standard GovS
> 015: Grants (collection page updated 15 September 2026). Replace every
> `[bracketed]` value and every row marked *Example*. This is a
> documentation format, not legal or financial advice: check the
> current official rules for your programme and ask your legal and
> finance teams.

<!--
Guidance: How to use this template
- Write the guidelines before the call opens and do not change the
  scoring or eligibility rules once applications are in. Changes after
  opening are a common source of complaints and legal challenge.
- Fill section 2 (objectives and outcomes) first: every eligibility rule
  and scoring criterion should trace back to an objective.
- Write for applicants who have never applied before. Plain language,
  a short summary at the top, worked examples of eligible costs and a
  single contact point reduce poor applications more than longer rules.
- The worked example follows a fictional funder, the Harrowmere
  Regional Authority, and its Community Digital Skills Fund. Every name
  and figure marked *Example* is invented. Amounts use the dollar sign
  only to illustrate the US annex arithmetic.
- Related documents: Grant Proposal (`nonprofit/grant-proposal`),
  Grant Report (`nonprofit/grant-report`), Theory of Change
  (`nonprofit/theory-of-change`), Monitoring and Evaluation Plan
  (`nonprofit/monitoring-evaluation-plan`), Conflicts of Interest
  Register (`compliance/conflicts-of-interest-register`), Fraud Risk
  Assessment (`compliance/fraud-risk-assessment`), Policy Brief
  (`public-sector/policy-brief`), Regulatory Impact Assessment
  (`public-sector/regulatory-impact-assessment`).
-->

## Document control

<!-- Guidance: Record the funding round and the approval of the scoring scheme. Assessors and auditors will ask which version of the guidelines applied to a given application. -->

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Document ID | [GPG-2026-001] |
| Version | [1.0] |
| Status | [Draft / Approved / Published / Closed] |
| Programme | [Programme name], round [n] |
| Funding body | [Organisation] |
| Legal basis or authority | [Statute, budget line or trust deed] |
| Owner | [@programme-manager] |
| Approvers/reviewers | [@senior-responsible-officer], [@finance], [@legal], [@counter-fraud] |
| Call opens / closes | YYYY-MM-DD / YYYY-MM-DD |
| Last updated | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Classification | [Public] |

### Approvals

| Role | Name | Decision | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Senior officer responsible for the grant | [@name] | [Approve] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Finance lead | [@name] | [Approve] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Legal adviser | [@name] | [Approve] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Counter-fraud lead | [@name] | [Approve] | YYYY-MM-DD |

### Revision history

| Version | Date | Author | Change summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.0 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@name] | Published for round [n] |
| 1.1 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@name] | [Clarification only, scoring unchanged] |

## Contents

1. Programme summary
2. Objectives and outcomes
3. Funding available
4. Who can apply
5. What we fund
6. Indirect costs
7. How to apply
8. How applications are assessed
9. Due diligence and award decisions
10. Conditions of grant and payments
11. Monitoring, reporting and evaluation
12. Changes, closeout and recovery
13. Complaints, fraud and data protection
14. Jurisdiction annexes
15. Glossary and references
16. Standard and licence note

## 1. Programme summary

<!-- Guidance: Fit the essentials on one screen. Many applicants decide from this table alone whether to read further. US practice limits the executive summary of a federal funding notice to 500 words; a short summary is good practice everywhere. -->

| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Purpose | [One sentence] |
| Total funding | [Amount] |
| Grant size | [Minimum to maximum] |
| Expected number of awards | [n] |
| Who can apply | [Organisation types] |
| Project length | [Months] |
| Call opens / deadline | YYYY-MM-DD / YYYY-MM-DD, [time and time zone] |
| Decision expected | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Contact | [Programme mailbox] |

*Example*: the Community Digital Skills Fund offers 1.5 million in
grants of 50,000 to 350,000 to non-profit organisations and local
public bodies that teach adults to use online public services. About
eight awards are expected for projects of 12 to 24 months.

## 2. Objectives and outcomes

<!-- Guidance: State the change the programme wants, the outcomes it will measure and how applicants should show their contribution. Link to the programme's theory of change if one exists. -->

| ID | Outcome | Indicator | Programme target |
|---|---|---|---|
| OUT-01 *(Example)* | More adults can complete an online public service on their own | Learners completing a task unaided at the end of the course | 6,000 learners |
| OUT-02 *(Example)* | Support reaches people least likely to be online | Share of learners aged 65 or over, or without home internet | 50% |
| OUT-03 *(Example)* | Skills last | Learners still using online services 6 months later | 70% of those followed up |

## 3. Funding available

<!-- Guidance: Say how money is split (lots, regions, sizes), whether match funding is required, and whether the funder may award less than requested. -->

| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Total budget | [Amount, by financial year if relevant] |
| Lots or strands | [Strand, amount] |
| Match funding | [Not required / Required at n% / Encouraged] |
| Capital or revenue | [Split and rules] |
| Partial awards | [Allowed / Not allowed] |
| Subsidy control or state aid | [Assessment and route, e.g. de minimis or scheme; check your national rules] |

## 4. Who can apply

<!-- Guidance: Write eligibility as yes or no tests that can be checked from documents. Vague eligibility ("organisations with a strong track record") belongs in scoring, not here. -->

| ID | Eligibility test | Evidence required |
|---|---|---|
| ELG-01 | [Legal form, e.g. registered charity, non-profit company, local public body] | [Registration number] |
| ELG-02 | [Location of operation] | [Address, area of benefit] |
| ELG-03 | [Minimum and maximum annual income] | [Latest accounts] |
| ELG-04 | [Not excluded: insolvency, debarment, unpaid taxes] | [Declaration and register checks] |
| ELG-05 | [One application per lead applicant] | [Declaration] |
| ELG-06 | [Project fits the programme objectives] | [Application form section] |

Partnerships: [rules for lead applicants and partners, who signs the
agreement and who is accountable for the money].

## 5. What we fund

<!-- Guidance: List eligible and ineligible costs with examples. Most rejected claims come from costs applicants assumed were eligible. State the basis on which costs are paid (actual costs, unit costs, lump sums). -->

| Cost type | Eligible? | Conditions |
|---|---|---|
| Staff salaries and benefits for time on the project | Yes | Time recorded; rates in line with normal pay policy |
| Travel | Yes | Economy class; in line with your own policy |
| Materials and supplies | Yes | Used on the project |
| Equipment | [Yes, up to n% of budget / No] | [Threshold and ownership rules] |
| Subgrants to partners | [Yes / No] | [Agreement and monitoring required] |
| Participant support (learner travel, childcare, data costs) | [Yes] | [Paid to or for participants] |
| Fundraising, lobbying, alcohol, fines, bad debts | No | |
| Costs incurred before the start date | No, unless pre-award costs are approved in writing | |
| Recoverable VAT or sales tax | No | |

## 6. Indirect costs

<!-- Guidance: Say exactly how overheads may be claimed: a negotiated rate, a flat rate, or itemised. Give a worked example on the cost base you use. A common pitfall is applying the rate to costs the base excludes (equipment, participant support, large subgrants). -->

[State the rule: negotiated rate accepted, flat rate of n% of [base],
or no indirect costs. State whether the same cost may be charged as
direct and indirect (it may not).]

*Example* (US federal pass-through, using the 2 CFR 200.414(f) de
minimis rate of up to 15% of modified total direct costs, MTDC):

| Budget line *(Example)* | Direct cost | In MTDC base? | MTDC amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| Salaries | 120,000 | Yes | 120,000 |
| Fringe benefits | 36,000 | Yes | 36,000 |
| Travel | 8,000 | Yes | 8,000 |
| Supplies | 6,000 | Yes | 6,000 |
| Equipment (one mobile training unit, unit cost 15,000) | 15,000 | No, equipment excluded | 0 |
| Participant support | 20,000 | No, excluded | 0 |
| Subaward to partner | 80,000 | First 50,000 only | 50,000 |
| **Total** | **285,000** | | **220,000** |

Indirect costs at 15% of 220,000 = 33,000. Total project budget =
285,000 + 33,000 = 318,000. Applying 15% to the full 285,000 would
have claimed 42,750, which is 9,750 more than allowed. Note that
laptops or tablets below the per-unit equipment threshold (the lesser
of the capitalisation level or 10,000) are supplies under 2 CFR 200.1,
not equipment, so they stay in the MTDC base.

## 7. How to apply

<!-- Guidance: Give a step-by-step process with dates, the form, word limits and attachments. Say how questions are answered and that answers are published to all applicants, so no one gets an advantage. -->

| Step | What happens | Date |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Call opens; guidelines and form published | YYYY-MM-DD |
| 2 | Information session (recorded and published) | YYYY-MM-DD |
| 3 | Deadline for questions; answers published as FAQ | YYYY-MM-DD |
| 4 | Expression of interest (optional) | YYYY-MM-DD |
| 5 | Application deadline | YYYY-MM-DD, [time and zone] |
| 6 | Eligibility check | YYYY-MM-DD |
| 7 | Assessment and moderation | YYYY-MM-DD |
| 8 | Decision panel and notification | YYYY-MM-DD |

Open period: allow enough time for applicants with little experience.
As a dated example, 2 CFR 200.204(b) says US federal funding
opportunities should normally be open for at least 60 calendar days and
not less than 30 unless exigent circumstances apply.

Application contents: [form sections, word limits, budget template,
letters of support, accounts, safeguarding and data policies].

## 8. How applications are assessed

<!-- Guidance: Publish the criteria, weights, scoring scale and any minimum scores. Assessors must score only against published criteria. Use at least two assessors per application and a moderation step, and manage conflicts of interest. -->

### 8.1 Criteria and weights

| ID | Criterion | Weight | What a high score looks like |
|---|---|---|---|
| CRT-01 *(Example)* | Need and target group | 25% | Clear evidence of need in a defined group that matches OUT-02 |
| CRT-02 *(Example)* | Project design | 30% | Realistic activities, outputs and outcomes, informed by learners |
| CRT-03 *(Example)* | Capability to deliver | 20% | Relevant experience, named staff, sound governance |
| CRT-04 *(Example)* | Value for money | 15% | Reasonable cost per learner, costs justified, other funding used |
| CRT-05 *(Example)* | Inclusion and sustainability | 10% | Accessible delivery and a plan after funding ends |
| | **Total** | **100%** | |

### 8.2 Scoring scale

| Score | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 0 | No evidence or does not address the criterion |
| 1 | Major weaknesses |
| 2 | Some evidence, significant gaps |
| 3 | Satisfactory, minor gaps |
| 4 | Good, clear evidence |
| 5 | Excellent, strong evidence throughout |

Weighted score = sum of (score / 5 x weight). Minimum to be considered:
[e.g. 60% overall and no criterion below 2].

*Example*: an application scoring 4, 3, 4, 3 and 5 on CRT-01 to CRT-05
gets 4/5 x 25 + 3/5 x 30 + 4/5 x 20 + 3/5 x 15 + 5/5 x 10 = 20 + 18 +
16 + 9 + 10 = 73%.

### 8.3 Process

```mermaid
flowchart LR
    A["Application received"] --> B{"Eligible?"}
    B -- No --> R["Rejected with reason"]
    B -- Yes --> C["Two independent assessors score"]
    C --> D["Moderation of score differences"]
    D --> E{"Meets minimum score?"}
    E -- No --> R
    E -- Yes --> F["Due diligence and risk review"]
    F --> G["Decision panel, portfolio balance"]
    G --> H["Award offer or reserve list"]
```

Portfolio balance: [say if the panel may balance awards by region or
target group, and how, before the call opens].

## 9. Due diligence and award decisions

<!-- Guidance: Check the applicant's identity, financial health, past performance and integrity in proportion to the grant size and risk. Record the result and any special conditions it leads to. -->

| Check | Applies above | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Legal existence and bank account | All awards | Registers, bank letter |
| Financial health | [Amount] | Accounts |
| Exclusion and debarment registers | All awards | [National register] |
| Past performance on grants | [Amount] | Previous reports |
| Fraud and conflict of interest declarations | All awards | Declarations |
| Safeguarding (if working with children or adults at risk) | All relevant awards | Policy and checks |

Higher-risk recipients may receive specific conditions, such as more
frequent reporting or payment in arrears.

## 10. Conditions of grant and payments

<!-- Guidance: Summarise the key terms of the grant agreement and link the full agreement. Applicants should know before applying what they will be asked to sign. -->

| Term | Summary |
|---|---|
| Grant agreement | [Link to model agreement] |
| Payment schedule | [In advance quarterly / In arrears on claims / Milestones] |
| Evidence for claims | [Receipts, timesheets, outputs] |
| Procurement by recipients | [Quotes or tender above set values] |
| Assets bought with the grant | [Ownership, use, disposal] |
| Publicity and acknowledgement | [Rules] |
| Records retention | [Years after closeout] |
| Audit and access rights | [Funder and auditors may inspect] |

## 11. Monitoring, reporting and evaluation

<!-- Guidance: Ask only for data you will use. Align financial and performance reports in timing. Tell recipients at award which indicators from section 2 they report against. -->

| Report | Frequency | Due | Contents |
|---|---|---|---|
| Progress report | [Quarterly / Six-monthly] | [n days after period end] | Activities, outputs, outcome indicators, risks |
| Financial report | [Same as progress] | [n days after period end] | Spend against budget, variances |
| Final report | Once | [n days after end date] | Outcomes, lessons, final accounts |
| Evaluation participation | [As requested] | | Data for programme evaluation |

## 12. Changes, closeout and recovery

<!-- Guidance: Say which changes need prior approval (budget moves above a threshold, scope, key staff, end date) and how the grant is closed. -->

| Item | Rule |
|---|---|
| Budget moves without approval | [Up to n% between lines] |
| Changes needing written approval | [Scope, partners, key staff, end date] |
| Closeout | [Final report and final claim; unspent funds returned] |
| Recovery | [Grounds for clawback: ineligible spend, breach, fraud] |

## 13. Complaints, fraud and data protection

<!-- Guidance: Explain how applicants can complain about the process (not the assessors' judgement), how to report suspected fraud, and how their data will be used. -->

- Complaints about the process: [route and time limit].
- Suspected fraud or misuse: [reporting line]. The funder will
  [describe the counter-fraud approach].
- Data protection: [privacy notice link; data shared with assessors and
  other funders for duplicate funding checks].

## 14. Jurisdiction annexes

<!-- Guidance: Keep the annex for the rules that bind your programme and delete the others. Each states the version date checked. -->

### 14.1 United States: 2 CFR part 200 (Uniform Guidance)

Checked on eCFR on 2026-10-30; last amendment to part 200 in effect
from 2024-10-01.

| Topic | Section | Rule (paraphrased) |
|---|---|---|
| Funding notices | 200.204 | Required notice elements; executive summary of no more than 500 words; open normally 60 days, not less than 30 except exigent circumstances |
| Merit review | 200.205 | Discretionary awards need a merit review process described in the notice |
| Risk review | 200.206 | Review of eligibility and integrity information; SAM.gov review above the simplified acquisition threshold |
| Indirect costs, de minimis | 200.414(f) | Up to 15% of MTDC for entities without a negotiated rate |
| MTDC definition | 200.1 | Includes the first 50,000 of each subaward; excludes equipment, capital expenditure, patient care, rent, tuition remission, scholarships, participant support and subaward amounts above 50,000 |
| Equipment | 200.1 | Useful life over one year and unit cost at or above the lesser of the capitalisation level or 10,000 |
| Financial reporting | 200.328 | At least annually, no more than quarterly unless a specific condition applies; annual reports due within 90 days, quarterly or semiannual within 30 days; final within 120 days |
| Performance reporting | 200.329 | No more often than quarterly unless a specific condition applies |
| Closeout | 200.344 | Recipient reports within 120 calendar days after the period of performance; subrecipients within 90 days |
| Single audit | 200.501 | Required when federal award expenditure is 1,000,000 or more in a fiscal year |

### 14.2 United Kingdom: Government Functional Standard GovS 015: Grants

GovS 015 (version 2.0 as listed on the collection page, updated
2026-09-15) sets expectations for managing government grants, supported
by minimum requirements guidance (for example on the senior officer
responsible for a grant and on approvals and data capture). Check the
current minimum requirements and your department's grants guidance,
and the Subsidy Control Act 2022 where grants go to economic actors.

### 14.3 Other funders

EU programmes, charitable foundations and research councils publish
their own rules on eligible costs, indirect cost rates and reporting.
Cite the programme's current rules by name, version and date in
section 15.2.

## 15. Glossary and references

<!-- Guidance: Define terms applicants may not know and list every rule set you rely on with its date. -->

### 15.1 Glossary

| Term | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Direct costs | Costs that can be traced to the project |
| Indirect costs | Shared costs of running the organisation (premises, finance, HR) |
| MTDC | Modified total direct costs, the US cost base for the de minimis rate |
| De minimis rate | A flat indirect rate that needs no rate negotiation |
| Subaward | Funds passed by the recipient to a partner to carry out part of the project |
| Participant support costs | Costs paid to or for participants, such as travel or stipends |
| Closeout | Formal end of the grant once reports and claims are complete |
| Clawback | Recovery of funds that were not used as agreed |

### 15.2 References

| Reference | Version or date | Link |
|---|---|---|
| 2 CFR part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards | Amended effective 2024-10-01, eCFR checked 2026-10-30 | https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-2/subtitle-A/chapter-II/part-200 |
| Government Functional Standard GovS 015: Grants, Cabinet Office | Version 2.0; page updated 2026-09-15 | https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-functional-standard-govs-015-grants |
| [Programme-specific rules] | [Version] | [Link] |

## 16. Standard and licence note

Based on 2 CFR part 200 (US federal regulation, public domain) and the
UK Government Functional Standard GovS 015: Grants (UK government
publication). The guideline structure, scoring scheme and examples are
original text. Rules, thresholds and rates change: check the current
eCFR text, your department's grant rules and the terms of your funding
source before each round. This template is not legal or financial
advice.

Template licence: MIT.