Communities Mental Health and Wellbeing Fund for Adults Year 3 – 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 supported. To help illustrate this, a wide selection of projects being funded through Year 3 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 Years 1 and 2 can be found here. A list of funded projects for Year 3 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 and 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 2,585. The level of applications was similar to Years 1 and 2.

Of those applications, 1,515 awards were made to community projects, resulting in funding for 1,363 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 of projects are being supported. The most common types of projects being funded are:

• Group activities (393) (25%)
• Social activities (182) (12%)
• Peer support (157) (10%)
• Other (150) (10%) The most common responses in the 'other' category related to education and training (11% (2% of total)).
• Therapeutic activities (113) (7%)
• Sport or physical activity (102) (7%)
• Financial inclusion/cost of living (59) (4%)

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.

3. Funding of new and existing projects

Of the project data returned, 37.62% were new projects, 44.37% were existing projects (previous Fund grantees), 13.27% were existing projects (not previously funded by the Fund), 1.71% were marked as N/A, and 2.51% of responses were left blank.

4. Size of grants awarded

Overall, most grants (53%) were for £10,000 or less. 39% were for grants between £10,000 to £20,000, 6% were for between £20,000 to £50,000, with only three grants (2%) over £50,000.

5. Size of organisations funded

TSIs were asked to list the size of organisation that had been funded. Of the 1,394 responses to this question, the awards were allocated as follows:

• 549 awards (36%) went to small organisations (with an annual turnover under £25,000)
• 667 awards (44%) went to medium sized organisations (with an annual turnover between £25,000 and £1 million)
• 116 (8%) went to large organisations (with an annual turnover over £1 million)
• 68 projects (4%) did not record the organisation size
• 115 projects were marked as "N/A" 8%

The majority of grants (82%) were therefore allocated to either small or medium sized organisations, which is encouraging given the ethos of the Fund.

6. Geographical coverage of funded organisations

The number of projects by TSI area is given in the table below.

16 of 31 TSIs used the option to allocate up to 1% of the main fund for capacity building for a total of £69,198.74.

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:

• 24% were aimed at general population
• 49% were open to all but with a focus on particular target groups
• 25% were aimed directly at particular target groups
• 2% of projects did not specify any targeted 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:

• Families with a disabled member, 603
• People facing socio-economic disadvantage, 589
• People with a long term health condition or disability, 577
• Lone Parents, 566
• Older People, 450

The groups less commonly targeted were:

• People from a minority ethnic background, 204
• People who have experienced bereavement or loss, 203
• Refugees and those with no recourse to public funds, 108
• Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender and Intersex (LGBTQI+) communities, 95

220 "other" entries were also recorded. Of these the most commonly supported group mentioned was unpaid carers (43).

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.

Table: Outlining the target group focus of the projects in Year 3

8. Project focus on Fund's key priorities

The Fund supports a wide range of grassroots community projects including those based around peer support, physical activity, arts and crafts activities, social interaction and befriending, with a strong emphasis on the key themes of prevention and early intervention, suicide prevention, addressing social isolation and tackling poverty.

Overall, there is very strong coverage across the fund priorities, with social isolation and loneliness, and tackling poverty and inequality the most prominent. Suicide prevention continues to be a focus for some but is less commonly cited.

• Social isolation and loneliness was a strong theme, with 1,311 projects including a focus on this.
• Tackling poverty and inequality (an increased focus in Year 3 to in response to the cost of living crisis) was the focus of 743 projects, and a shared theme of many others.
• Suicide prevention is the least common theme to be adopted with 376 having this as a sole focus although many included this as a shared theme.

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 to consider whether projects being funded are helping to support some of the six priority at risk families.

Analysis of returns shows that 845 projects (56%) were supporting people from at least one of six priority at risk families. Of these 275 (33%) projects focused on one target group and 570 (77%) on more than one group. 145 projects (17%) reported supporting all six groups.

As the majority of projects declared support for multiple priorities the numbers below will not add to the total of projects.

• Of the overall number of projects:
  • 603 projects (44%) were supporting families with a disabled family member,
  • 566 projects (41%) were supporting lone parents,
  • 419 projects (31%) were supporting families with 3+ children,
  • 346 projects (25%) were supporting minority ethnic families,
  • 331 projects (24%) were supporting mothers aged less than 25,
  • 312 projects (23%) were supporting families where the youngest children are under 1 year old.

10. Administration and Capacity Grant

A grant of £734,000 was provided to support administration costs and the capacity building efforts of Third Sector Interfaces.

This was distributed across Third Sector Interfaces, each receiving approx. 5% of their Fund grant amount as an Administration and Capacity Building Grant. TSIs were also offered the flexibility to draw on up to 1% of their main fund allocation to resource some specific capacity building support to projects focused on improving mental health and wellbeing, such as supporting training needs.

16 of 31 TSIs used the option to allocate up to 1% of the main fund for capacity building for a total of £69,198.74.