Third Sector Resilience Fund: evaluation

4. Stakeholders’ views on the management and implementation of the Fund

The evaluation included eight interviews with stakeholders of the Fund. The stakeholders that were interviewed included: representatives from the organisations administering the Fund (Corra, Firstport and SIS); individuals from organisations that were involved in the management and implementation of the Fund more broadly; and organisations that represent the Third Sector in Scotland, such as TSIs and other infrastructure organisations. While this section typically considers the views of all stakeholders in general, where relevant it also distinguishes between the views of administering partners on one hand and other stakeholders on the other hand.

Stakeholders were asked a series of questions designed to obtain their views on how the TSRF was managed and implemented. Amongst a range of topics, stakeholders were asked about the relationship between their organisation and other stakeholder organisations, the effectiveness of the application process and whether the Fund was successful in meeting its aims.

4.1 Setup of the Fund

During the interviews, stakeholders were asked to reflect on the process of setting up the Fund. Many felt that this process was a collaborative one. Interviewees from organisations that participated in administering the TSRF (Firstport, Corra Foundation and SIS) felt that they had a good and trusting working relationship with each other and that this allowed them to move quickly during the setup phase.

“We were meeting on the daily basis to talk about the Fund and issues. I think it was a really good working partnership and a relationship. We all came with really open and trusting engagement. I haven’t worked with [them] before … but it felt really easy to have those conversations. We were just, I think we all recognised what our roles were, we had an outline in our memorandum of understanding, so we knew what expectations were, so it was all really clear.”

Other stakeholders – from organisations that did not administer the TSRF but that were nevertheless involved in the Fund – reflected that during the setup phase, they felt listened to and that their voices were important and could affect change. Interviewees also said that it was great to feel that everyone was working towards the same goal. The fact that people working on TSRF were available for frequent meetings meant that during the setup phase things could move quickly and necessary sign-offs were achieved without delays.

“We had probably 90-minute phone calls every day to either civil servants or [our partners administrating the Fund] at the beginning, to get a better understanding of what [organisations in the sector] needed. We were in the grassroots and speaking to our members regularly, we provided that intelligence as a conduit between the funders, the government and [the wider sector] and what they needed. I would say, above and beyond providing data insights, anecdotal intelligence, to be a critical friend to the Fund, to challenge some of the assumptions.”

Generally, interviewees felt that the setup of the TSRF went as well as it could given the circumstances of the pandemic. Most interviewees agreed that particularly in light of how quickly the TSRF was set up and operationalised, it was designed well and they did not think any major changes could have been introduced.

While some interviewees would have liked to have had more time to plan for the setup of the Fund, they acknowledged that the circumstances made this impossible, and demanded a very rapid response. Several interviewees also said that such an intense period of work could have led to staff burnout, because it was not clear how long the pandemic would continue and how long staff would need to work at such a high pace.

“It was really, really fast, so we would not normally have implemented a programme at that pace and that speed. We would have taken more time to think about processes and the structures but we recognise we needed to do it really quickly.”

“Obviously, as time moved on, there were some design flaws that were identified, but in the context of what happened [in] March – April 2020 I do not think there was anything that we could have done better given the circumstances. And I know that elsewhere in the UK, no other devolved administration … was anything like us, [or as] proactive as [the] Scottish Government were in terms of putting some type of solution and getting money flowing as quickly as we did in Scotland.”

4.2 Eligibility criteria

Stakeholders were asked to provide their views on the eligibility criteria that were set for the TSRF. Generally, the stakeholder interviewees agreed that the TSRF eligibility criteria were clear and a good reflection of the Fund’s aims. A few interviewees reflected on some of the changes that were made to the eligibility criteria during the implementation period, which they felt had been beneficial. For example, one interviewee referred to the removal of the minimum grant size, which was initially proposed to be set at £5,000 but which was removed to enable smaller organisations requiring small amounts of money to apply.

“You mentioned earlier about [the] £5,000 lower limit to start with. Because we were dealing with the smaller organisations, we very quickly realised that that is not going to work, because you would be excluding so many community groups. [Removing the lower limit] did mean that we had a lot more applications, and some of our grants, the average was maybe £2,500 to £3,000 but it was enough that they needed. So we recognised very quickly that needed to shift because the very people that you were trying to support would not have got the access to funding or support.”

Although interviewees generally said that the eligibility criteria were right for the Fund, some challenging discussions emerged around these – particularly in relation to the criteria around cash reserves. As a reminder, organisations were not eligible for TSRF funding if their current reserves could cover more than four months (Phase One) or 12 weeks (Phase Two) of operating costs. For example, one interviewee said that because organisations with more than a few months of reserves were ineligible for TSRF funding, they often had to use these reserves further down the line to stay afloat. This, in turn, meant that they became just as vulnerable as the organisations that had received funding on account of having few to no cash reserves.

“And the other one that we got a lot of feedback about … was the eligibility concerning how much reserves an organisation had. If the organisation had more than two or three months of reserves, they were ineligible. Now, the problem that we are hearing just now is that [organisations] have used their cash reserves and now are just as vulnerable as some of the other ones that managed to engage with the finance that was offered. So there is maybe more parity across the sector, but some of the organisations have worked hard on their resilience and built stronger organisations, but now they’re feeling they’re back to square one.”

Another interviewee said that organisations varied in the amount of reserves they had, regardless of the size of their organisation, and that this led to many large organisations being awarded funding. Although this could have left the TSRF open to criticism from applicants from smaller organisations, the interviewee said that this was nevertheless the correct approach to take.

“Some organisations tried to evidence the need that they had, so for example, some major organisations with lots of big assets, lots of investment, but actually reasonably low cash reserves, particularly in line with the monthly expenditure. So they still technically fit the criteria in terms of [their reserves], but there did seem to be a bit of a disconnect, because there were smaller organisations that did not have those investments or assets but might have had slightly more money – just slightly more in terms of cash – that we were saying no to. And the way we reconciled that in the end was that some of those bigger organisations, their survival potentially had more of a knock-on impact on [the] wider economy in the local communities.”

Another stakeholder felt that the eligibility criteria for the Fund could have been communicated more effectively. They said that the funding landscape for organisations became confusing since the TSRF was one of several emergency response funds launched; this led to some confusion for organisations when making decisions about which funds they were eligible for and could apply to.

4.3 The application process

Stakeholders were also asked about their views on the process of applying for funding. Generally, the consensus was that the application process was relatively fast, with successful applicants receiving funding quickly – most often within two weeks of applying.

A number of interviewees also felt that the TSRF application form was short and clear, and they mentioned the importance of designing a simple form, to ensure that organisations that did not have a lot of experience applying for funding could do so successfully. For example, a couple of interviewees – including representatives from grant recipient organisations – commented on the fact that organisations were not asked to provide significant amounts of information to support their application.

“It was quite light touch, I think, as well. You were not having to produce your electricity bills…. It was good that we did not have to show proof of everything, that they understood. So yeah, I think in that respect it was good, it was really good.”

However, some organisations relied on intermediary organisations for help and support with the application process. This included smaller organisations that had never applied for funding before, and also organisations run by individuals who did not have strong computer literacy skills and/or had difficulties understanding the language used in the application form. Intermediaries also played an important role in making sure that third sector organisations knew about the TSRF. They reported sending out newsletters and calling organisations to inform them about the TSRF and suggesting help with applying.

A few stakeholder interviewees also said that greater efforts should have been made to provide unsuccessful applicants with feedback, particularly during the first phase of funding. One interviewee felt that the lack of feedback that was given to unsuccessful applicants may simply have been a reflection of capacity within the administrative organisations.

“COVID-19 had so much impact on organisational ability and delivery, so maybe it’s not fair, because people might have been off, they might have had capacity issues themselves, but certainly the feedback that we got from members was “we have got rejected, we did not get any feedback on our rejection.” We had to act as an intermediary in some cases with Corra and Firstport…. And I remember directly having to make phone calls advocating on members’ behalf and asking for feedback as well in certain instances.”

4.4 Risk management

Interviewees were also in agreement about their approach to risk management as being a largely successful one. In their opinion, enough due diligence was carried out to ensure the funds were not misused. There was an overall agreement that in an emergency situation, it was more important to prioritise supporting organisations in need and if the Fund was set up during non-emergency times, a more rigorous risk assessment would have been in place.

“I do not feel like anybody abused any of the funds, they genuinely applied for what they needed.”

“I think that, we talked about [risk management] back and forth with my colleagues because being completely honest it was hard to say … because of the limited amount of monitoring that we could do to actually check on that. On balance, we feel that we did enough checks upfront to balance what we see as a small risk of fraud against the risk of organisations that needed the support going under. So we felt it was proportionate overall. There will have been organisations that got funding that perhaps under normal assessment process, more digging would have revealed that they didn’t need as much or whatever the reason might be, but we would rather have taken the risk than having a big employer organisation going under and not being able to keep their staff on.”

4.5 Achievement of the fund aims

Generally, interviewees thought that the TSRF largely achieved its aims of helping third sector organisations during the early stages of COVID-19 by helping them to remain open and to “keep the lights on”. Interviewees reflected on the speed with which the Fund was established and funding was dispersed to successful applicants, on the light-touch and relatively straightforward processes which underpinned it, and on the success of the partnerships formed to help deliver the Fund.

“Yes, I think [the Fund achieved its aims]. I think it set out to make sure that organisations could get funding to enable them to sustain and be there as we come out of COVID-19, and I think it definitely had. I think it reached probably more groups than we expected to reach.”

In some instances, the TSRF had positive indirect consequences. One interviewee said that one of the main successes of the Fund was that it improved the administering partner organisations’ – as well as politicians’ and civil servants’ – awareness and understanding of the organisations that make up the third sector. This interviewee reflected on a commissioned piece of work which mapped organisations in receipt of TSRF funding to the Social Enterprise Census and also to OSCR. This, in turn, led to the discovery that over 1,000 organisations in receipt of TSRF funding were not on either the Census or the OSCR register – in other words, they were not known to the partnering organisations.

“I was getting phone calls every day from colleagues … asking “Is this a social enterprise?” It really made people think…. It’s about trying to get a better understanding of who those organisations were and where they came from.”

However, some interviewees commented on aspects of the Fund that could have been improved or done differently, to ensure the achievement of its aims. A few interviewees said that had they widened the eligibility criteria, or had they given organisations more time to apply for funding, then the Fund could have reached even larger numbers of organisations. For example, one interviewee commented that they could have widened the eligibility criteria to include organisations that had more than three months’ worth of financial reserves – they felt that the criteria around having no more than three months’ reserves was “a bit ambitious”.

Another interviewee also pointed out that the TSRF only helped to protect organisations from the initial crisis of the pandemic, whereas some organisations only began struggling at a later date when the longer-term impacts of the pandemic became more apparent. These organisations, they said, were at risk of not receiving any funding at all.

“There is a sense that [the Fund] achieved the goal of supporting a lot of organisations from the initial fallout, but we were always conscious that even while that first fund was being delivered, that further reaching economic impacts would probably be the biggest problem. As in, once all the emergency funding … ran out, when you get to this period when organisations are opening back up again, [people made] a lot of comments … about … approaching the end of long-term funding agreements that they had…. There were several people that would say “Well, we do not have a problem now, but if this is still happening in six months, we have got a big problem, because our core funding disappears.” And we saw such a number of those that we had concerns, that yeah, we saved some people, but others haven’t hit the problem yet, but when they do, we might not still be going, the funds might not be there to help those organisations.”

While the Fund was indeed only set up to help organisations deal with the initial impact of the pandemic and therefore was not designed to support organisations in the longer term, it is worth noting that longer-term support soon became available through the Adapt and Thrive Programme, which was delivered in partnership by Firstport, Corra Foundation, SCVO, Just Enterprise, Community Enterprise and Social Investment Scotland.

4.6 Useful learning for other funds

Based on their experiences of the TSRF, many interviewees provided some suggestions for how other funds could be administered in future. Several interviewees said that future funds should aim to replicate TSRF’s principles and have short and clear application forms, minimal monitoring requirements and clear funding criteria.

However, while most interviewees agreed that the criteria for TSRF funding were well-explained, some suggested that future funds should have more FAQs prepared – they said that it is important to not assume that organisations applying for funding would have prior knowledge of how to fill out funding applications, so making application forms as clear as possible was important. One interviewee also suggested that Third Sector Interfaces (TSIs) could play a bigger role in making decisions about – and distributing – funding to third sector organisations due to their good understanding of local communities. It is worth noting that while the TSIs were not involved in the TSRF to this extent, they were more heavily involved in supporting the implementation of the Wellbeing Fund at the time, and so they may have had limited capacity to play a bigger role in the administration of TSRF funding.^[21]

A couple of the interviewees representing grant-administering organisations said that there were elements of the TSRF model that should be – and, in some cases, were – incorporated into the roll-out of other types of funding offered by these organisations. For example, one interviewee said that based on learning from the implementation of the TSRF, they simplified their application and monitoring forms for other funding programmes and that, for small grants programmes, they implemented a new timeframe to ensure that applicants received decisions about funding within a month and to ensure that successful applicants received payment quickly. Another interviewee said that they learned to streamline the process of applying for grant funding – this provided useful learning that could be carried into the administration of other funds.

“There is some stuff that we have rolled out in other funds as well, there are a few things. So one of them was gathering bank details as part of the application process. We [had] previously not done that … but because it was a secure platform, we felt we could do that. There were certain things we did around streamlining the funding agreement, so we actually became, rather than when somebody has been awarded, then having to send them a funding agreement, them having to sign it, then send it back. What we did instead, we included a link to the terms and conditions in the application form and a tick box that they had to check before submitting the application to say that they agree to abide by the terms and conditions if they were funded, which was a bit of a change of approach, it cut steps out of the process and meant that as soon as the panel has made the decision we can give them money. So, some of that, in others you might want to take more time and go through other compliance processes as well, but being able to expedite that when you need to.”