This fund is open
| Opening date | Open |
| Closing date | Until funding runs out |
| Maximum funding per project | £15,000 |
| Project duration | Short |
| Eligible applicants | Academics at all UK universities who have already received PQA Early Impact funding |
The Follow-On Fund is available to do further work on an already funded PQA Early Impact project. Read more about fundable activities. Up to £15,000 can be requested. This type of call will be open while funding lasts.
Application and review
We aim to respond to Follow-On Fund applications within two weeks of receipt. Two reviewers and a member of the Steering Committee will assess applications against three criteria laid out below. Applications scoring over the funding threshold will be offered an award. For Follow-On Funding, we will also take into account what has already been achieved during the project. Where we receive many applications in a week these will be ranked and the highest scoring applications, subject to funding being available, may be offered an award.
We provide feedback from the reviewers as soon as possible.
Follow-On Fund marking criteria
Due to the diverse nature of Follow-On Fund requests, only three criteria are assessed:
Value for Money
10: The resources required for the project are fully described. Strong justification is provided for why they are all required to meet the project outcomes. Where necessary, funds are used to enable the team to fully participate in the project. The funding requested is only what is needed. The project impacts are significantly greater than the funds requested. The project provides excellent value for money.
8-9: The resources required for the project are described. There is good justification made for why they are needed. Where necessary, funds are used to enable team members to participate in the project. The project impacts are much greater than the funds requested. The project provides great value for money.
5-7: Most of the resources required for the project are outlined. Justification is made for why some are needed. Some funds may be used to enable participation in the project. The project impacts are more than the funds requested. The project provides some value for money.
1-4: The resources required are not well described or not mentioned at all. There is little or no justification for the resources. Funds are not used to support the needs of team members. The project impacts do not exceed the funds requested. There is little or no value for money.
Outcomes and Impact
10: The project outcomes are fully described and the route to achieving them is planned. Partners and their roles are described in detail, and their benefits and impacts explained. How impact in Central Scotland will be realised is detailed and highly likely to occur. The long-term impacts are described as well as credible pathways to achieving them.
8-9: Project outcomes and routes to achieving them are detailed. The role of partners and how they will benefit from the project is explained. Impact in Central Scotland is explained and is credible. Long-term impacts are considered, with a plan to achieve them.
5-7: Project outcomes are outlined, but no clear plan to realise them is provided. Partners are discussed, but it isn’t clear what their role is or how they benefit from participating. There could be impact in Central Scotland, however how this will be achieved requires more work. Long-term impacts are mentioned, with some explanation of how they might be achieved.
1-4: Project outcomes are missing or not detailed; there’s little or no plan on how they will be realised. It is unclear why partners are involved and what they will do. Impact in Scotland is tenuous or highly unlikely. Long-term impacts need more explanation or are not detailed at all.
Quality of Project
10: The project has a detailed and well-managed plan. A Gantt chart is provided with work packages explained and clear roles for the team. Credible Project Milestones are provided and risks mitigated. There is confidence the plan will be run well and completed on time.
8-9: The project has a well-managed plan. A Gantt chart details the tasks and timeline. Project Milestones are set and risks highlighted. The plan is good and will likely be completed on time.
5-7: The project plan requires more work. A simple Gantt chart is provided. Milestones and risks require more rigour in their assessment; key risks are missing. The plan is functional and may finish in time.
1-4: There is not enough detail about the project plan. No Gantt chart is provided. Only a few milestones and risks are provided and not well assessed. It is unlikely the project will finish in time.
How to apply
Please read the application guidance and eligibility requirements, and follow the instructions on that page to apply.