Communities Mental Health and Wellbeing Fund for adults: year 2 - monitoring and reporting summary

Section A - Reach of Funded Projects

It is important to note that a strength of the Fund is the diverse range of projects it has funded. To help illustrate this, a wide selection of projects being funded through Year 2 of the Fund are listed at Annex A (which are grouped by target group, priority theme or other themes) and Annex B (which provides an example for each region). A full list of projects funded in Year 1 can be found on the Scottish Government website. A list of funded projects for Year 2 will also be published in due course.

What was asked

TSIs were asked to provide project level data in terms of the number of awards, size and coverage of the funded organisations, size of grants, type of initiative as well as their focus on priority groups and themes.

1. Number of grants

The total number of applications received across Scotland was 2585. The level of applications was similar to Year 1.

Of those applications, 1458 awards were made to community projects, resulting in funding for 1441 organisations. Some organisations gained funding for more than one project.

2. Type and range of projects

In reviewing the range of funded projects, it is clear that a diverse range projects are being supported. The most common types of projects being funded are:

• Group activities (369) (representing a 169% increase on the previous year)
• Peer support (209) (representing a 190% increase on the previous year)
• Social activities (132)
• Sport or physical activity (92)
• Therapeutic activities (86)
• Financial inclusion/cost of living (65)
• The most common responses in the ‘other’ category related to education, training and support.

It should be noted that projects were to select one of the above categories best fitted to the project although many will relate to more than one of these categories.

Projects involving equipment were often for small amounts of money and highlight how a small item such as a laptop or a video editing licence can make such a huge difference to the survival of these initiatives and impacts of the beneficiaries.

A selection of projects funded to date in Year 2 have been set out below to give an indication of the type and range of projects being funded.

Passion4Fusion project focuses on peer support and aims to provide one-to-one and group setting supports (including mental health and wellbeing workshops) for people across West Lothian who are struggling with daily challenges such as disability, mental ill health and isolation and loneliness. This includes specific support to members of the local African community with underlying health issues and concerns (including mental health) who struggle with access to culturally appropriate services and support.

Ardrossan Community Council aims to provide a community support worker, expand the community cafe hours and establish a community mental health and poverty relief initiative across three local towns. The project aims to provide a warm and safe space with a range of specialist support information and advice for anyone in need.

LGBT Plus ‘Out for a Cuppa’ befriending focused project in Dumfries and Galloway aims to allow those in rural locations the opportunity to socialise with likeminded groups in a safe accepting environment, through the creation of safe venues.

The Gate Charity’s project in Clackmannanshire aims to establish peer support groups to offer further support to those in the community who are often overlooked. New groups will include a memory café, an autism support group, and men’s mental health peer support.

3. Funding of new and existing projects

Of the responses to the question on whether Year 2 projects are new or existing projects, it is clear that there has been a good balance achieved between sustaining Year 1 funded projects whilst also investing in new work.

• 38% (539) were entirely new projects
• 42% (592) were existing projects (previous Fund grantee)
• 20% (294) were existing projects (previously in existence but new to the Communities Fund)
• With a further 12 responses marked as ‘existing project’ (these returns did not state whether they were previous Communities Fund recipients or not)

4. Size of grants awarded

Overall, most grants (57%) were for £10,000 or less. Small grants between £2,000 - £10,000 were most commonly awarded, with 49% of grants allocated in this bracket. 31% were for grants between £10,000 to £20,000, 12% were for between £20,000 to £50,000, 8% for under £2,000 with only 1 grant (0.1%) for over £50,000.

While this is a similar picture to year 1, the most notable change is an 11% point decrease in grants awarded between £2,000 – £10,000 and a 15% increase in grants between £10,000 - £20,000, possibly reflecting the prioritisation of this bracket or the rising costs for project requiring an uplift.

5. Size of organisations funded

TSIs were asked to list the size of organisation that had been funded. Of the 1394 responses to this question, the awards allocated as follows:

• 410 awards (29%) went to small organisations (with an annual turnover under £25,000)
• 856 awards (62%) went to medium sized organisations (with an annual turnover between £25,000 and £1 million)
• 119 (9%) went to large organisations (with an annual turnover over £1 million)

The vast majority of grants (91%) were therefore allocated to either small or medium sized organisations, which is encouraging given the ethos of the Fund. The figures are broadly the same as Year 1.

6. Geographical coverage of funded organisations

While all bids required the funded work to be community based within a specific local region, TSIs were asked to report the geographical coverage of the organisations receiving funding. Of all awards allocated:

• 35% went to organisations operating across a small locality
• 23% went to organisations operating across a few localities
• 25% went to organisations operating across a whole TSI region
• 7% went to organisations operating across multiple TSI regions
• 6% went to organisations operating across Scotland
• 1% went to organisations operating across the UK
• 5 projects (0.35%) went to organisations which reported that they operate internationally (however, from review of organisations, they may have misclassified themselves as they appear to have a small local focus).

Therefore, most (94%) of funded organisations operate at a local level (either TSI/local authority level, across few localities or one small locality, and it was much less common to see organisations working across Scotland or beyond. These figures highlight that awards reflect the ethos of the Fund in terms of supporting small grassroots activity.

The figures are broadly the same as Year 1, but with more funding to organisations operating across a few localities (an increase of 5%) and less to organisations operating across a whole TSI region (a decrease of 12%).

7. Project focus on target groups

TSIs were asked to report whether projects were primarily aimed at the general population, open to all but with a focus on particular target groups or aimed directly at particular target groups. Analysis shows:

• 48% were aimed at general population
• 28% were open to all but with a focus on particular target groups
• 23% were aimed directly at particular target groups

TSIs were also asked to note up to three target groups that their projects were seeking to reach. The results are outlined in the table below. This shows that the most commonly targeted groups were:

• People facing socio-economic disadvantage (684)
• People with a long-term health condition or disability (548)
• Older people (479)
• People with diagnosed mental illness (406)
• People disadvantaged by geographical location (particularly remote and rural areas) (277)

These are broadly in line with Year 1 figures. While difficult to compare numbers (with around 200 less projects funded in Year 2 due to different level of funding), the numbers focusing on diagnosed mental illness have increased while the geographical disadvantage focus have decreased.

The groups less commonly targeted were:

• Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender and Intersex (LGBTQI+) communities (112)
• Refugees and those with no recourse to public funds (143)
• People at higher risk from COVID (190)

A number of “other” entries were also recorded, with 67 projects targeting unpaid/adult carers being identified, along with small numbers of organisations targeting groups including people who use alcohol and/or substances, people at risk of self-harm or suicide and young people.

In comparison to Year 1, there has been an increased focus on those with no recourse to public funds (from 112 to 143) and ethnic minority communities (from 202 to 221) which is positive given around 200 less groups were funded in Year 2. However, there has been less focus on LGBTI groups (from 161 to 112). The new reduced focus on people at higher risk of Covid is understandable given the reducing impact of the pandemic more generally.

It should be noted that the lowest numbers are consistent with groups that are often the least represented in health support, as well as the groups that can face the most health inequalities and stigma. Whilst it should be factored in that this is a society wide trend, these low numbers are still a concern. However, section 2 of this report sets out the impressive efforts of TSI areas in proactively reaching overlooked groups.

Table 2: Outlining the target group focus of the projects in Year 2

Target group	Number of projects supported
People facing socio-economic disadvantage	684
People with a long-term health condition or disability	548
Older people (aged 50+)	479
People with diagnosed mental illness	406
People experiencing severe and multiple disadvantage	383
People affected by psychological trauma (including adverse childhood experiences)	288
People disadvantaged by geographical location (particularly remote and rural areas)	277
People who have experienced bereavement or loss	208
People at higher risk from COVID	190
Women (particularly young women and those affected by gender-based violence)	268
People from a minority ethnic background	221
Refugees and those with no recourse to public funds	143
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender and Intersex (LGBTQI+) communities	112
Other (top response was adult/unpaid carers)	146

8. Project focus on Fund’s key priorities

TSIs outlined which of the Fund’s national priorities the projects included a focus on. Overall, there is very strong coverage across the fund priorities, with social isolation and loneliness, prevention and early intervention and tackling poverty and inequality the most prominent, with suicide prevention a less common theme. Many projects highlighted a focus on a range of themes.

Of the 1437 responses, analysis shows that:

• 1239 projects included a focus on social isolation and loneliness
• 723 projects included a focus on addressing poverty and inequality
• 299 projects included a focus on suicide prevention
• 641 projects included a focus on addressing poverty and inequality and social isolation and loneliness
• 264 projects included a focus on both suicide prevention and social isolation and loneliness
• 166 projects included a focus on suicide prevention and poverty and inequality
• 159 projects included a focus on all three target areas
• 592 projects included additional local priorities, such as improving mental wellbeing, learning and personal development and improved community resilience
• 923 projects worked on both prevention and early intervention
• 291 worked on prevention
• 218 worked on early intervention.

Key Findings: Process – Fund delivery approach

9. Contribution to Child Poverty Plan

The Fund Guidance highlighted the importance of considering the six priority at risk family types (most at risk of poverty) identified in the Best Start, Bright Futures: Tackling Child Poverty Delivery Plan 2022 to 2026. TSIs were asked at a late stage (early 2023) to consider whether projects being funded are helping to support some of the six priority at risk families.

Analysis of returns shows that 24% of projects were supporting people from at least one of six priority at risk families.

Amongst these: 268 projects (19%) were supporting lone parents, 253 projects (18%) were supporting families with a disabled family member, 210 projects (15%) were supporting families with 3+ children, 204 projects (14%) were supporting minority ethnic families, 200 projects (14%) were supporting mothers aged less than 25, and 190 projects (13%) were supporting families where the youngest children are under 1 year old.

10. Equalities – Accessibility and Inclusivity of funded projects

Recognising that some target groups are unlikely to engage in projects without additional support, TSIs were asked to report the approaches that funded organisations were taking to ensure their projects were accessible and inclusive to a range of target groups.

There were a wide variety of different responses provided, which particularly focused around raising awareness of the services, physical accessibility and transport, and providing inclusive, affordable spaces.

The most common groups which accessibility measures targeted were people with socio-economic disadvantage, people with long-term conditions/disabilities, older people (50+) and women.

An overview of the key themes identified in the answers to this question is provided below:

• Awareness: Much of the focus on accessibility centred on raising awareness of projects. Organisations described specific targeted awareness and referrals through using links to other third sector organisations, community institutions (such as churches), health and social care services and social services. Targeted promotion was also used by many organisations, including through online social networking and posters.
• Physical accessibility: Many organisations described accessibility adaptations in terms of meeting mobility and impairment needs. This includes ensuring spaces are fully wheelchair accessible (including within transport provided), providing mobility aids when necessary, and providing information in a range of accessible formats.
• Transport: Providing transport options was frequently highlighted as being necessary to ensure accessibility. Measures to ensure this was inclusive included ensuring activities took place in locations and at a time of day which are accessible by public transport, providing taxi or car share services for people who live more remotely, and offering services in multiple different locations to be accessible to the most number of people possible. Some organisations also highlighted the value of providing transport assistants to give participants confidence in travelling to new locations.
• Online engagement: Organisations also highlighted that where transport was unavailable or impractical, and for those less able to travel to physical locations, providing online and telephone alternatives was a key part of providing inclusive engagement. This was also highlighted as a way to provide greater flexibility for those with work and childcare responsibilities.
• Inclusive environments: Organisations highlighted the importance of providing environments which are safe, non-judgemental and inclusive to their participants. Examples of this include ensuring spaces reduced stigma around issues such as mental illness, poverty and substance use and, in cases, enabling people to participate anonymously. The use of trauma informed approaches were highlighted by some organisations and others highlighted the importance of making sure that projects working with a diverse range of communities are culturally sensitive. Many organisations shared that spaces should be warm and welcoming to participants, and some highlighted the importance of having options for quiet, confidential spaces where in cases where participants prefer these.
• Communication: Organisations highlighted changes to communication mechanisms to make them more inclusive. This included providing information through alternative formats (such as subtitled explanatory videos and translated information sheets), adopting jargon-free and non-judgemental language, using interpreters and volunteers who can speak multiple languages including BSL, ensuring fixed/portable hearing loop systems for people with hearing aids
• Free participation: Many organisations highlighted the importance of providing free services in order to be accessible to people regardless of socio-economic situation. Likewise, free-of-charge provision of equipment required to participate in activities was highlighted. Other organisations implemented “pay what you decide” models in their programmes to enable access to those in need, such as provision of bursaries for those facing financial barriers. One funded organisation - a social enterprise yoga studio - used profits from paid members to help fund free yoga classes for those in need and used funding to run additional free health and wellbeing sessions.
• Childcare: Several organisations provided activities for children and childcare support while parents, particularly mothers, participated in project activities. They also highlighted providing facilities such as baby changing for project participants. Some organisations adapted their timing to provide flexibility around childcare responsibilities.
• Staff training: Several organisations highlighted the training provided to their staff and/or volunteers to support providing accessible and sensitive engagement, which included using mental health first aiders and practitioners. Trauma informed approaches were utilised where appropriate.
• COVID safety: In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, organisations adapted their approaches to provide additional safety for those at greater risk or concern of COVID-19. This included moving sessions outdoors.

TSIs were also asked highlight two examples of funded projects which are inclusive and accessible. Two examples from TSIs are noted below:

Refugees: In Edinburgh, the Bikes for Refugees community hub is in a central and accessible location accessed by good public transport links and good walking and cycling routes. Their hub is fully accessible, they can offer expenses to people to travel to their hub if required. They can also deliver bicycles and Welcome Packs directly to families if required. They have a volunteers’ expenses budget to support those with lived experience to participate as volunteers. The project has a tried and tested accessible online form for requesting bicycles, which can be translated to any language. The project invites service users into their online community where they share information about free group cycling activities as well as other free community services and resources. They work flexibly and creatively to support refugees by placing pools of shared use bicycles within shared accommodations (Leith Ship, Heriot Watt University Campus, Hotels) where storage and security may be limited and an issue.

Rural: In the Western Isles we are supporting the Assist Project, based in Bernera Community Centre, which will focus on reducing social isolation and loneliness in the adult population of Great Bernera, encourage residents to participate in new activities/social events, and help to raise people’s spirits and sense of community after the Pandemic and during the cost-of-living crisis, providing accessible support to users in a remote rural community.

11. Equalities – Human rights considerations of funded projects

TSIs were also asked for examples of funded projects who have considered how they can promote people’s human rights in the delivery of their projects.

Seven TSIs provided detailed information on the approaches taken, with others more limited. There was a good range of projects adopting a human rights approach varying from outreach advocacy services - which remove barriers that prevent people accessing advocacy support and understanding their human rights - to early intervention approaches as well as human trafficking which can be a driver in, as well as a result of, mental illness.

Two examples illustrating strong consideration of human rights approaches are outlined below:

In North Lanarkshire the FAMS project - supporting people in distress - is a wide-ranging programme of supports but with elements strongly focussed on the identification and tackling of mental health inequalities and the reduction of stigma. Additionally North Lanarkshire has funded the Miracle Foundation a project targeted at marginalised and often under-represented groups in order to maximise their opportunities to fully participate in their communities and society as a whole.

In Inverclyde the TSI is funding the Parklea Branching Out project - a community inclusion project which will deliver a programme of activities for adults with learning disabilities which places human rights, equality and human dignity at the heart of the work delivered. The partnerships developed activities are delivered in line with the overall terms for the National Taskforce for Human Rights Leadership. Core to the work is ensuring that no client is excluded from taking part due to their disabilities and adaptations and support is provided to ensure inclusivity.

In Edinburgh, SOHTIS (Survivors of Human Trafficking in Scotland) Speak Up Stay Safe initiative takes an early intervention approach to addressing concern about the rise in human trafficking in Edinburgh thought to be driven by & resulting in mental illness. By working with clients and practitioners SOHTIS aim to create opportunities for people at risk of mental illness to have access to preventative messages about trafficking and provide victims with opportunities to discuss their experiences of trafficking in a safe and trauma informed way. The project will also provide training and second tier advice for practitioners on trafficking to strengthen prevention, resilience and early identification. It will demonstrate links between mental health and human trafficking with the aim to develop a strategic city wide response to trafficking which prioritises prevention and early identification of trafficking, improving mental health outcomes for victims and potential victims and increasing capacity across third and statutory sectors.

12. Equalities – Intersectionality considerations of funded projects

TSIs were asked to support projects which consider intersectionality in terms of the benefit of the project (i.e. multiple-marginalisation, such those experiencing both poverty and disability). We asked TSIs for examples of funded projects which consider this.

A range of examples were shared, with two of these noted below:

Multiple-marginalisation: In the Falkirk Area the Transform Forth Valley project is supporting additional capacity for an Early Intervention service, partnering with Police Scotland so they may access those most in need. This project supports adults aged 30-49 who are socially isolated, have poor mental health - some with severe and enduring mental illnesses, have experienced trauma, are engaging in substance misuse, with an aim to improve their health outcomes and reduce drug-related deaths in the area.

Mental health issues and poverty: In Inverclyde the Community Advice, Support (CASH) project will help by taking referrals from other Communities Mental Health and Wellbeing Fund supported projects for people who are struggling with mental health issues and who are living in poverty. People suffering from mental ill health are often unable to work and can suffer from poor financial housekeeping. As such by working collaboratively with other funded projects this joined up project is considering the intersectionality in terms of experiencing poverty and poor mental health.

13. Spend

TSIs were asked to provide information on: the total number of applications received; the number of awards the total amount of funding spent; levels of spend and amount allocated to capital funding. Analysis shows:

• Of the £15 million total allocated to TSIs for onward distribution to community organisations, £14,957,278.52 had been distributed by the end March 2023.
• Of the money spent, 2% of overall fund value (£295,605) has been allocated to capital spend (such as the construction, refurbishment and/or purchase of buildings, amenities or vehicles). The Fund guidance allowed small capital spend of no more than £5,000.
• £2.1 million of additional match funding has been gained through other sources (such as local authority funding, external funders and so on). The high level of matched funding highlights some of the benefits of the TSI led delivery model and the strong partnership working which has been built through the Fund. In future, it would be useful to gather further data on match funding in terms of the funders.