We consistently receive many more high-quality applications for the Essentials Fund than we can support. In 2024-25 we received upwards of 500 applications and awarded a total of 24 funds, with the vast majority of applicants expressing legitimate needs and compelling cases for support.
Over a number of application rounds, with an increasing number of applications we receive, the selection panel has reflected that making distinctions between equally deserving artists becomes harder for an award of this size, and merit-based approaches can be challenging to apply effectively or fairly. This can sometimes creates unfairness where similar applicants receive different outcomes based on subjective assessment variations and unconscious bias.
For Rounds Three and Four of the Essentials Fund, we will introduce randomisation as part of the selection process to explore how it can enable us to support more artists and address barriers to accessing funding by reducing biases from the process, reducing the amount of time it takes to apply and improving user experience.
As this is a pilot, we are open to receiving feedback about our approach. Please use our anonymous feedback form to submit any questions, concerns or suggestions you have.
Why we are using randomisation
Our approach to introducing randomisation for the Essentials Fund is informed by extensive research conducted by Watershed Bristol and Jerwood Arts, and has been successfully implemented by organisations including Theatre Deli, The British Academy and New Diorama Theatre. You can read more about randomisation in arts funding in Random Selection: The How To Guide (2023).
By introducing randomisation, we can:
- Remove barriers by reducing unconscious bias from our selection process
- Divert more funds to artists by reducing assessment overheads
- Scale effectively to accommodate higher application volumes without increasing costs
- Simplify applications with fewer, shorter questions that respect your time
- Increase transparency about how selection decisions are made
- Improve diversity through representative quotas that address under-representation directly
How it works
Our approach uses early randomisation with quota sampling and eligibility vetting.
Phase 1: Open call
Applications are collected through our standard application form with voluntary demographic information.
Phase 2: Random shortlisting
We randomly select a shortlist of approximately 150-200% of available awards (e.g., if we have 20 awards, we shortlist 30-40 applications). Random selection uses proportional quotas based on demographic categories to ensure representative distribution and address historical under-representation in our programmes.
Phase 3: Eligibility check
We review the shortlist internally to verify that all applications meet our minimum eligibility criteria. Any ineligible applications are removed and replaced through additional random draws.
Phase 4: Final selection
Once we have confirmed the required number of eligible applications, we conduct a final random selection to determine the award recipients.
Frequently Asked Questions
Won't this mean lower quality projects get funded?
No. We still check that all applications meet our eligibility criteria and have clear, reasonable proposals. The difference is that we're removing subjective judgments between the many strong applications we receive, where distinctions become arbitrary rather than meaningful.
What if my application is really exceptional?
When we receive 500+ applications for 20-25 awards, the reality is that many applications are strong and deserving. Trying to rank these becomes increasingly subjective rather than objective. With randomisation as part of the selection process, all eligible applicants have a chance of selection.
Does this devalue the award?
We don't think randomisation devalues the award, but that it changes what the award represents. Rather than being selected as "the best," recipients are selected as deserving representatives from a large pool of worthy applicants. The randomisation can help increase the legitimacy of selection by removing bias, and increase the chances for eligible applicants who may typically be excluded from opportunities due to the application process or unconscious bias.
Should I still put effort into my application?
Yes. Your application needs to clearly demonstrate clear eligibility and show how you'll use the funds. The difference is we're asking for less detail than traditional applications, respecting your time while still allowing us to assess eligibility.
What if I'm not selected?
Not being selected says nothing about the quality of your work or application - it simply means you weren't randomly drawn from a large pool of eligible applicants. We encourage you to apply again in future rounds.
Is this legal?
Yes. This approach complies with UK charity and gambling laws. Applications are free, and the final selection still depends on meeting eligibility criteria rather than being fully random. The process increases the effectiveness of our resources by reducing bias.
Evidence base
This approach is informed by extensive research conducted by Watershed Bristol and Jerwood Arts, and has been successfully implemented by organisations including Theatre Deli, The British Academy and New Diorama Theatre.
You can read more about randomisation in arts funding in Random Selection: The How To Guide (2023).
Feedback
We're implementing randomisation as a pilot approach for the Essentials Fund Round Three (November 2025) and Round Four (early 2026). We will document each stage of the process carefully, gather feedback, assess the approach between application rounds and make iterative refinements in future rounds.
We welcome your feedback. If you have questions, concerns, or suggestions about this approach. Please use our anonymous feedback form below or email our Head of Programmes, Laonikos Psimikakis Chalkokondylis (Laonikos.PC@SoundandMusic.org)