Third Sector Resilience Fund: evaluation

Footnotes

1 The funding for these loans was made available by recycling income from a previous loan programme managed by SIS. The loans were therefore not funded through a portion of the overall funds allocated to the TSRF.

2 The organisational information collected included the organisations’ sector of activity, location, financial information relating to reserves, cash holdings and annual turnover, and staffing information. Note that neither the applications data nor the monitoring returns data sought to gather organisational information relating to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI). As such, it is not possible to provide any further analysis in this regard.

3 For the earlier analysis report, see the Scottish Government website.

4 While organisations could receive feedback from funding partners on unsuccessful applications to aid future applications, it is not possible to confirm the number of instances in which such feedback was provided.

5 Note that 173 out of 3,466 applications (5.0%) did not provide any information on the sector of the applicant organisation. As such, these applications have been removed from this part of the analysis.

6 One application did not provide information on their geographical location (neither local authority information nor postcode data) and has therefore been excluded from this part of the analysis.

7 Using postcode data for 6,976 data zones across Scotland, SIMD measures the level of deprivation in an area across seven domains – income, employment, education, health, access to services, crime and housing – and each data zone is then assigned to one of five quintiles. Those areas that are assigned to the first quintile are classed as the 20% most deprived areas in Scotland, and those in the fifth quintile are classed as the 20% least deprived. For more information, see the Scottish Government website.

8 Note that one application was excluded from this part of the analysis, due to a lack of information on the location of the relevant organisation.

9 Depending on the application route, some applicants were asked to provide their ‘annual expenditure’ while others were asked to provide ‘annual turnover’, from their last financial year. It is possible that some organisations may have provided income information for turnover, while others provided expenditure. For many third sector organisations, expenditure and income levels tend to match closely, and the data indicated that this was the case overall for the applicant organisations. Accordingly, we have presented these two measures together as the best way to give the overall picture of the size of the full set of organisations applying to the Fund.

10 Note that the analysis excludes 114 applications (3.3% of all 3,466 applications) where organisations provided no information on expenditure or turnover.

11 Note that this analysis excludes the 167 applications (4.8%) where no information on employee numbers was provided.

12 Applicants were asked to give information about either their ‘unrestricted reserves’ or their ‘reserves’ depending on which application route they took. Both sets of responses are included in this analysis.

13 Note that a more in-depth analysis of financial resilience based on the application data can be found in a separate analysis of applications and awards through the TSRF.

14 This analysis excludes the 121 applications (3.5%) where information about reserve levels was not provided.

15 Note that 241 applications (7.0%) were removed from this part of the analysis because of a lack of relevant information. The daily expenditure cost was derived by dividing the total expenditure/turnover reported for the last financial year by 365. As such it is only a crude indication of organisational operating costs, since annual expenditure may vary significantly from year to year and may include one-off or special costs in any given year.

16 Note that 788 monitoring forms does not equal 788 organisations because three organisations submitted two monitoring forms.

17 The 571 monitoring forms include organisations that said they spent the amount that they were awarded, as well as organisations that said they had spent less than they were awarded at the point when they returned the form. It excludes organisations that said they spent more than they were awarded.

18 Organisations could select all the services that applied, which is why the total percentages sum to more than 100%.

19 Organisations could select all the groups that applied, which is why the total percentages sum to more than 100%.

20 Organisations could select more than one relevant impact, which is why the total percentages sum to more than 100%.

21 For an evaluation of the Wellbeing Fund open applications process, please see the Scottish Government website.

22 For more information about the Adapt and Thrive Fund, please see the SCVO website.