WorkWell Clarification Log
WorkWell Grant Application - Clarifications Log
The Employment & Skills WorkWell team have compiled answers to submitted questions about the WorkWell grant application process on this page.
The window for submitting questions closed at 9am on Tuesday 8th September 2026.
We've compiled responses under the following themes:
- Agreements, Finance & SLA.
- Application format (including partnership bids).
- Mobilisation & Delivery.
- Personnel (Recruitment / staff ratios / qualifications).
- Scope of Provision, Eligibility & Caseloads.
We are working with colleagues to gather further responses to questions submitted and will provide a further update shortly.
| Question | Response |
|---|---|
| Are you planning to issue a draft set of T&Cs before the submission deadline? | No, these will be set out in the grant agreement when we have received full DWP confirmation. |
| Please clarify how the 75% minimum volume for full grant operates and whether any payment reduction applies progressively below target. | We would anticipate that underperformance (below the 75%) will lead to a like reduction in grant allocation. This is still to be determined by the DWP and Surrey County Council. |
| Please clarify whether the grant value must cover all costs associated with NHS/Primary Care secondments, or whether seconded staff costs may be met by their employing organisation. | Yes that's correct. The Grant value must cover salary costs associated with NHS/Primary Care secondments. |
| Question | Response |
|---|---|
| Please can you confirm if diagrams may be used in the response and if words within diagrams contribute to the overall word count for the question. | Yes, diagrams may be used within the Grant Application where they help to illustrate or support the response. Words contained within diagrams will not be included in the overall word count for the question. However, any explanatory text outside of the diagram should remain within the specified word limit. |
| Please can you explain how the performance management of partners will operate if bidders choose to submit a bid involving partners? We note that all partners will be issued a direct contract with ESCC. Will contracts be managed by the lead bidder/partner, or ESCC? How will this work? | Where contracts are awarded to individual partners, ESCC will retain direct oversight and performance management of each contracted organisation. While a lead partner may coordinate partnership activity, each partner will remain individually accountable to ESCC for the delivery, performance and compliance of their own contract. |
| How will referrals be allocated between providers if a partnership bid is successful and will ESCC decide this allocation? | The lead partners would be expected to allocate referrals but would need to outline their process for doing this in the application. |
| Please confirm whether partnership or subcontracted delivery involving a specialist ADHD coaching provider is permitted under the current grant opportunity. | Partnership bids will be considered where they strengthen local reach and specialist delivery commensurate with local need. Coaches will provide tailored advice and will signpost to local specialist provision where need arises. |
| Please confirm whether a CIC based outside East Sussex may participate as a specialist delivery partner where support is delivered remotely to eligible East Sussex residents. | The grant opportunity is open to any eligible organisation. We will expect our selected contractor to be able to evidence like local delivery to date and anticipate that work and health coaches will offer co-located engagement and delivery via local PCN, DWP, housing, hubs and other key local settings and to be able to offer face to face support for project participants. |
| Please confirm whether you would expect the lead applicant to hold the full participant caseload and refer suitable participants into specialist provision, or whether specialist partners can hold and deliver defined elements of the caseload directly. | The lead partners would be expected to decide how caseloads are allocated in order to meet their targets. Partners should outline their process for doing this in the application. Where contracts are awarded to individual partners, ESCC will retain direct oversight and performance management of each contracted organisation. While a lead partner may coordinate partnership activity, each partner will remain individually accountable to ESCC for the delivery, performance and compliance of their own contract. |
| Question | Response |
|---|---|
| Will bids be considered with a mobilisation plan and commencement date 3 months post grant application signature to allow for recruitment? | While we know that additional recruitment will be required, organisations need to explain how they will meet the targets set for the six month delivery window, and we do expect to see participant starts in October. Partners should have appropriate resource available from the start of October to ensure that resource enables referral generation, quality of service, partnership working, engagement with key stakeholders such as ICTs alongside participant support. |
| Please confirm the expected minimum contact/intervention level per participant during the maximum 12-week journey. |
Providers should set out their plans to deliver regular, tailored support for each participant. Each participant is likely to have different needs and we would expect the offer to be needs led. This could include, for example:
|
| Please clarify whether the provider is expected to generate participant referrals itself, given ESCC's central triage/referral arrangements, or whether the provider's role is primarily pathway development and promotion. | There will be a regional marketing campaign to drive residents directly to the ESCC triage service. However, the Provider is expected to generate participant referrals via relationships with ICTs, PCN and other stakeholders. |
| Please confirm whether there are expected geographical deployment/co-location requirements by district or locality. | A key feature of the model is co-location and integration. Delivery staff should work as much as possible within community and health settings, including GP practices, community hubs, youth and family hubs, libraries, with housing teams, Citizens Advice and foodbanks, to foster referrals and to enable access to those least likely to engage with traditional services. We would expect the provider to cover all of East Sussex commensurate with demand and health related unemployment levels to ensure that all residents have access to the provision. |
| Question | Response |
|---|---|
| Could you please clarify the requirement for a minimum FTE of Employment and Wellbeing Coaches across the 3 financial years of the programme. Does this requirement mean that throughout 26/27 there must be a minimum of 4 FTE in each month of delivery and likewise if the minimum FTE is set to 7.5 and 8 for each month of 27/28 and 28/29 respectively? Or is there scope for staffing on a monthly basis to be below the minimum to reflect the caseload ramp up at the start of the programme and ramp down at the end of the programme, with the minimum FTE requirement reflecting the peak caseloads of each given year rather than a minimum requirement for each month? | The minimum FTE figures are intended to reflect the staffing capacity required to support peak caseloads within each financial year, rather than a requirement to maintain those levels in every month of delivery. We recognise the need for staffing to ramp up and down alongside participant numbers; however, providers should ensure sufficient resource from the outset to support referral generation, service integration, partnership working, and engagement with key stakeholders, including ICTs, while maintaining service quality throughout delivery. Organisations can only claim for the funds spent, so the full grant allocation will not be received if defined staff numbers are not in place. |
| Is there an expectation or preference that all coaches hold (or gain) a Level 6 or Level 4 CEIAG qualification. | Yes. It is expected that all coaches hold (or gain) a Level 6 or Level 4 CEIAG qualification. |
| Can you please confirm the minimum number of staff can be reduced in ratio with the number of participants to be seen by 75%. i.e. minimum number of staff in year 1 would be 3 not 4. | Budget is allocated for recruitment of specified staff numbers. Organisations can only claim for funds spent. If staff are not allocated the full quota of participants, time could be allocated towards staff training, systems development, developing colocation and multi-disciplinary work, promotion and engagement etc. |
| The guidance specifies a target of 952 participants during 2028/29, a minimum staffing requirement of 8 FTE Work and Health Coaches and a requirement not to onboard new participants during the final three months of the programme. In modelling delivery capacity, these assumptions appear challenging to reconcile, particularly where participants may receive support for up to 12 weeks and providers are expected to manage caseloads of up to 30 participants per coach. Please can you confirm whether the 952 participant target has already been adjusted to reflect the final three-month onboarding restriction and, if not, provide the assumptions used to calculate the minimum staffing requirement? |
The Targets listed in the table on p.7 and specified by DWP are as follows:
|
| Please confirm whether the stated minimum FTE levels are mandatory throughout each year or indicative staffing assumptions linked to participant volumes. | Yes, we would like to see the full volume of staff appointed to reflect peak caseloads and the budget can only be claimed on this basis (for work delivered and funds spent). However, staff can be allocated other tasks related to supporting the programme if less than 30 participants are on programme - for example to support referral generation, colocation, multi-disciplinary working etc. |
| Please confirm what ESCC would consider an acceptable equivalent to Matrix accreditation. | Alongside robust safeguarding, data protection and performance management arrangements., we would accept evidence of: Matrix Standard or SEQF accreditation/fidelity review or ISO 9001 or Investors in People or An equivalent externally validated quality assurance framework |
| Please confirm what qualifications/accreditations ESCC will accept as equivalent professional competence to CEIAG. |
ESCC expects all coaches delivering the service to hold, or be working towards, a recognised Careers Education, Information, Advice and Guidance (CEIAG) qualification at Level 6 or Level 4, as appropriate. ESCC will also consider equivalent professional competence where applicants can demonstrate that staff hold other recognised careers guidance qualifications and/or professional accreditation that evidences the knowledge, skills, impartiality and ethical practice required to deliver career guidance services, such as:
|
| Question | Response |
|---|---|
| Please could you confirm the eligible age cohorts? | WorkWell is aimed at all working aged residents with a disability, health condition, or wellbeing challenge that affects their ability to stay in work, return to work, or move closer to employment. We recognise that in East Sussex we have considerable numbers of young people aged 16-24 with specific needs. We would expect the provider to consider how they would differentiate support for this group compared to other cohorts aged 25+. |
| Could you provide further detail as to your rationale for the requirement for the Employment and Wellbeing Coach to support a caseload of approximately 30 people? On equivalent programmes we have delivered we would normally see much higher caseloads. | The caseload of approximately 30 participants is the DWP advised caseload for the programme. The figure is intended to ensure a high-quality, personalised service, enabling coaches to provide regular contact, tailored support, and effective coordination with partner services to achieve outcomes. |
Two similar questions submitted:
|
Although we are not specifying a breakdown of delivery between cohorts of participants we would hope to see approximately 20% of those supported to be aged 16-24 in line with local economic inactivity levels and we will be recording information about candidates so that we can monitor provision and targeting (age, gender, location etc). What we would like to understand is how you would tailor provision for the different cohorts that you will be supporting. |
| Question | Response |
|---|---|
| Please can you confirm if the Targets contained within the table on page 7 of the application guidance are for ‘starts’ on programme, or for participants completing the programme/exiting support. | Yes, the targets referenced on page 7 (table) refer to starts. Additional distance travelled outcomes will be agreed in discussion with Surrey County Council (the lead body for the programme) and may include: return to work, remaining in work, improved wellbeing, barriers addressed. |
| Please can you confirm if the Target 26/27 target (298) contained within the table on page 7 of the application guidance is for October 26 - March 27. With 27/28 and 28/29 covering full financial years April/March. |
The Targets listed in the table on p.7 and specified by DWP are as follows:
|
Two similar questions submitted:
|
Although we are not specifying a breakdown of delivery between cohorts of participants we would hope to see approximately 20% of those supported to be aged 16-24 in line with local economic inactivity levels and we will be recording information about candidates so that we can monitor provision and targeting (age, gender, location etc). What we would like to understand is how you would tailor provision for the different cohorts that you will be supporting. |
| Please confirm whether there are expected geographical deployment/co-location requirements by district or locality. | A key feature of the model is co-location and integration. Delivery staff should work as much as possible within community and health settings, including GP practices, community hubs, youth and family hubs, libraries, with housing teams, Citizens Advice and foodbanks, to foster referrals and to enable access to those least likely to engage with traditional services. We would expect the provider to cover all of East Sussex commensurate with demand and health related unemployment levels to ensure that all residents have access to the provision. |
| Please clarify whether any specific employment, retention, return-to-work or wellbeing outcome targets will be included in the grant agreement in addition to participant volumes. | Distance travelled outcomes will be agreed in discussion with Surrey County Council (the lead body for the programme) and may include: return to work, remaining in work, improved wellbeing, barriers addressed. |