OUR OPEN GRANTS ROUND IS NOW CLOSED AND WE ARE REVIEWING APPLICATIONS. FURTHER DETAILS OF THE PROJECT WE SUPPORT WILL BE POSTED ON OUR WEBSITE IN DUE COURSE.

The Hg Foundation is excited to launch our first Open Funding Round in the UK for Computer Science initiatives supporting women and non-binary identities.

Our mission is for the technology workforce of the future to harness the talents of all, regardless of their background. Evidence shows that Computing degrees are a good way into a tech career - 22% of early career workers in digital or computing jobs, plus 19% in AI roles, studied the subject at university. However women, particularly those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, remain significantly underrepresented on Computer Science courses making up just 19% of degree acceptances this year. Moreover, those who do make it onto the university courses tend drop out at a higher rate than their male peers.

The Hg Foundation would like to help address this issue by finding programmes that support more women and non-binary identities to access and thrive in Computer Science degrees.  While all programmes should contribute to this ultimate aim, we are open to initiatives that intervene from age 11 upwards, ensuring that pupils access the best pathways into the subject.

We do not expect programmes to stretch their work across the full pipeline from age 11 through to undergraduate, but we will be looking at interventions that focus on key transition points across these ages. We recognise that interventions may also involve looking at other STEM subjects to support the overall goal of entry into a Computer Science degree.

Within the ~£1m funding envelope, we will also consider funding two or more programmes from different organisations, that target different stages of the pipeline and complement one another. For example, we may decide to fund one organisation working to dispel misconceptions and provide advice on routes into Computer Science in early secondary school; and a second, looking at supporting the transition from KS5 study into university, or from university into careers.

The Foundation has produced an internal rapid review of the evidence to establish which areas of intervention might be most promising. The review can be found here and the summary here. We encourage applicants to read this material and reference it, or other research literature, in their application.

A central conclusion of the review is that there is relatively little high-quality evidence on the impact of initiatives on Computer Science education and employment outcomes. To address this, we will support successful programme/s to be accompanied by a robust impact evaluation, looking at intermediate and (where appropriate) long term outcomes throughout the grant period. Programmes must be willing to take part in such evaluation and to contribute to the evidence base of what works.

Grant Overview

• This is a £1 million fund, aiming to support 1-2 programmes over 3 years in the first instance.

• A proportion of the grant will be allocated to evaluation.

• As with all our partnerships, there will be the possibility to extend the funding depending on the implementation and evaluation results for the programme/s.

• Programmes will launch from September 2025.

Programme Specification

Aim: Support more women and non-binary identities, particularly those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, to enter and succeed in Computer Science pathways from secondary level upwards.

Programmes should:

• Be based in the UK.

• Support participants to access and/or successfully complete Computer Science degrees either directly or by building the pipeline earlier on in secondary education.

• Focus on one or more key transition points from secondary school (age 11) through to undergraduate.*

• Implement academic support and/or outreach activities.

• Be operated by an organisation or a collaboration between organisations with a good track record of programme delivery in this area or a closely allied one.

• Have an evidence-informed Theory of Change that aligns with The Hg Foundation’s Outcomes Framework – see further information here along with our Evaluation Guide.

• Be willing to commit to an independent evaluation which will be commissioned alongside the programme.

*Please note, the Foundation currently does not support initiatives working with pre-secondary school aged participants.

Please submit your completed application form via email to Kymrun Dhami (kymrun.dhami@hgcapital.com) by no later than 17:00 on Friday 1st November 2024.

Timeline

Thursday 19th September 2024 - Applications Open

Friday 1st November 2024 - Applications Close

November-December 2024 - Shortlisting

Mid-December 2024 - Shortlisting Outcomes Announced

January – March 2025 - Stage 2 Reviews and Final Proposals

April 2025 - Successful Programmes Announced

If you have any questions related to the funding round or would like to discuss your programme before submitting an application, please email kymrun.dhami@hgcapital.com.

If you require an alternative form format for better accessibility, please do not hesitate to get in touch and we’ll be happy to assist.

Computer Science Open Funding Round - FAQs 

Overall Round

“Access and thrive” – Does a programme need to support participants to both access and thrive in Computer Science degrees?

We do not expect one programme to work across the full range of the pipeline from age 11 to graduation; we are interested in programmes that focus on one or more key transition points along the pipeline.

Existing partner – Can an organisation apply for this round if they are an existing partner with The Hg Foundation or have received funding from the Foundation before?

Yes, we welcome applications from all suitable programmes.

UK-based – If an organisation is registered in the UK but operates in a different country, can they still apply for this open funding round?

This open funding round is specifically for programmes operating in the UK, therefore we wouldn’t be able to award a grant if the programme isn’t for UK-based participants. We may host funding rounds for other regions in the future, so please keep an eye on our website and sign up to our newsletter for updates.

Non-UK registered charity – Can an organisation that is registered in another country but works in multiple countries, including the UK, apply?

Yes, as long as the programme the funding is requested for is supporting UK-based participants, we will consider.

New initiatives – Can a newly created programme apply and would there be any concerns about this?

Yes, new initiatives can apply, but we expect the programme to have a Theory of Change, be evidence-based and operated by an established organisation with a good track record. The application form allows space to share more background on this, including information on the expertise of the delivery team and how you’d manage the risks associated with a new programme.

Overall aim – Is the round only considering applications that are aimed specifically at supporting participants onto Computer Science degrees, or can the destination aim be broader?

For this specific funding round, we are looking at the overall aim of improving access to and success in Computer Science degrees for women and non-binary identities – by supporting the pipeline at any key points from age 11 through to graduation. Therefore, the overall destination is very specific to Computer Science degrees rather than alternative post-18 routes.

Multiple applications – If an organisation is collaborating with another for a proposal, can that organisation submit its own proposal based on working with a different age group in the pipeline?

If the other programme is aligned to the aim then yes, a separate proposal can be submitted for a different target audience. However, we’d still need to consider in the selection process if we’d fund multiple programmes which share a contributor or not, as depending on the proposals, we may only want an organisation to work on one.

Programme Design

Age groups – Can a programme work with different age ranges, e.g. Year 7 only and Year 10 only?

Yes, if this type of model makes sense for your programme and is evidence informed.

Computer Science and/or STEM? – Can programmes be focused on just Computer Science secondary education and not look at other STEM subjects?

Programmes can focus on whichever interventions and subjects they feel are important for supporting the fund’s overall aim. We are open to considering various models and structures that are evidence informed.

Collaboration – Can an organisation commission other providers to help support the programme’s offerings?

We understand that in some cases, to avoid duplicating existing work, its more efficient to access another provider’s resources and/or expertise. We are happy for organisations to collaborate together, but when work is being commissioned or purchased from a provider, it’s important that the organisation applying to the round is still executing the majority of the programme offer. Likewise, value for money and potential cost effectiveness are some of the factors we will be considering in selection.

Size – When working with schools, should programmes be designed to start by piloting in a few schools or be executed in a large number from the get-go?

This completely depends on the programme design and what makes sense for the interventions. We do not have a specified threshold for the number of participants we expect to be reached, but we will be looking at the cost effectiveness of a programme when reviewing applications.

Bursaries/Stipends – Would bursaries for participants be funded as part of a programme’s offerings?

This would depend heavily on the design of the programme, as our grants aim to fund programmatic activity and evaluation. Therefore, it would be important to understand the wrap around support being offered to participants and how the overall programmatic activity operates, as well as the evidence behind offering financial support. We could consider funding bursaries alongside programmatic activity, but we will also be considering value for money and cost effectiveness during selection.

Iterative funding / pilot – If a programme would like to run a pilot in its first year, is it ok to submit a proposal for this with an iterative budget across the three years?

We are looking to make a three-year commitment. But, as long as the programme design is evidence-based, has a developed Theory of Change and is operated by an established organisation with a good track record, we will consider pilots that grow in subsequent years, if there is a clear need that is not being filled by existing provision.

Delivery timelines – Is programme delivery expected to start from September 2025, or could there be a period (e.g. 8 months) from this date, dedicated to programme design refinements and further landscape mapping with programme delivery beginning after this?

We are looking for established programmes/programme designs that showcase a well thought through, evidence informed programme with a Theory of Change. This will hopefully mean the grant period can feature enough programmatic activity for an initial evaluation too. However, if there is a clear need and good reasoning for some form of an implementation period, we will consider. But it is important to note that we are looking for applications from developed programmes/programme plans.

Content balance – How much of the programme should be focused on enrichment vs curriculum support?

We do not have a specified distribution for programme activities, they can include one or multiple areas of work. As mentioned previously, we expect programme designs to be evidence informed, have a Theory of Change and be suitable for the participants its targeting.

Targeting – Are programmes expected to target non-binary identities specifically, independent of targeting for women and girls?

This funding round is hoping to support women and non-binary identities together, so we would not be explicitly expecting separate offerings or targeting for each. It is about keeping the participant pool inclusive for those underrepresented in Computer Science degrees, as the fund's main aim is to address the overall problem that the vast majority of Computer Science graduates are male.

Budget

Specific budget lines and template – There have been a few questions about whether funding could apply to certain items such as student travel costs, equipment for participants, developing platforms etc. and if the budget needs to be presented in a specific format.

With this, we expect costs to reflect those necessary for running the programme effectively - we look to fund both programmatic costs and evaluation costs. Without seeing a detailed proposal, it can be hard to say whether specific elements are appropriate for a programme, but application forms should capture the rationale for these. Please bear in mind that value for money and potential cost effectiveness are some of the factors we will be considering in selection.

We also have not included a budget template in the application form, to allow organisations to showcase this in the best format for them.

Budget available – As the fund is £1 million in total for potentially different programmes, should our proposal be costed up to £500k?

The fund is £1 million to support 1-2 programmes over 3 years. If two are selected it doesn’t necessarily mean it will have an even split between the two programmes, as we expect costs to be both realistic for the programme being proposed and cost effective.

Evaluation budget – Should organisations include evaluation costs in their budget?

Yes, please include an estimate for evaluation costs in your budget, but we are aware this may change if/when evaluation plans develop. Working with partners to develop a robust evaluation plan is a key part of the latter stages of the grant application process.

Overheads – Can organisations include costs for overheads in their programme budgets?

We do not have a specific policy for overheads (or FEC), but we would expect overheads to be proportionate and linked to the programme. Value for money and potential cost effectiveness are some of the factors we will be considering in selection.

Staff costs – Can an application include staff costs in the budget?

Yes, but we expect staff costs to be proportionate and related to those working specifically with the programme, plus only includes FTE that is not already funded.

Future funding – If a programme isn’t at a developed enough stage to apply for this round, will there be future funding opportunities?

At this stage, we are unable to say if we will be hosting a future open funding round focused on this same area in the UK, however any potential updates will be shared in our newsletter and on our website.

Evaluation

Theory of Change – How does a programme write a Theory of Change and is there a template available?

A Theory of Change should be written in the way that makes the most sense for your programme. The Hg Foundation’s Outcomes and Evaluation Guide has some guidance and useful links to help with writing this; example template structures can be found in the Appendices (please note, as these are quite simple, we have decided to not send out exact templates, to allow organisations to flex the design to suit their needs and branding).

Outcomes – As this grant is for 3 years, if programmes work with younger students the outcomes related to a Computer Science degree will not be seen for a while, is this a disadvantage and do you expect organisations to track participants long-term?

This funding round is considering programmes from age 11 through to undergraduate, so we recognise that programmes working with a younger age group will be monitoring different shorter-term outcomes than those working with the older age range – this is not a disadvantage. The Hg Foundation will be funding successful programmes for an initial period of three years, with the possibility to extend the funding beyond this, depending on implementation and evaluation results. Hence, successful programmes may work with an external evaluator to determine the options for long-term monitoring and tracking, if appropriate.

Control group – Could a school-based programme use a previous year group, or half of the same year group, as a control group for an evaluation?

Successful programmes will work with an external evaluator to help determine the best format for an impact evaluation. This may include a comparative control group, which (if deemed suitable) could include other students from a school. However, this will vary depending on the nature of a programme and appropriateness for the model.