Wellbeing Fund - open application process: evaluation

3. Where did the funding go?

3.1 Overview of applications and awards

The Wellbeing Fund Open Application Process was open for two rounds of applications. In Round One there were 1,004 applications to the fund, applying for a total of £25,073,599. In Round Two there were a further 559 applications for a total of £11,497,638. Across both rounds there were a total of 1,563 applications for a total of £36,571,237.

In the first round, 557 awards were made with a total value of almost £13.95 million. In the second round, 398 awards were made with a total value of £7.63 million.

Fund assessors recommended 955 projects for funding, awarding a sum of £21,582,333. Overall, across the two rounds, 61% of all the applications were successful.

Applications in the second round were substantially more likely to be successful than applications in the first round. In Round One 55% of applications were successful, compared with 71% in Round Two. This is likely to be due in part to the fact that a review of the first round highlighted a number of areas where the fund criteria could be clarified and better communicated. All unsuccessful applicants were also given feedback on their applications after Round One, with the intention that they would be more likely to successful in Round Two. Around 100 organisations that were unsuccessful in Round One resubmitted their applications and were successful in Round Two.

The average application request size across both rounds was £23,398, although many of the applications were for relatively low amounts. As Figure 1 shows, 5% of applications were for less than £5,000, and therefore not eligible for funding from the Wellbeing Fund. More than half (58%) of the applications were for values between £5,000 and £20,000. Just 15% were for values of £40,000 or more.

The average award size of successful applications was £22,599. As Figure 2 shows, the distribution of award values reflected the distribution of application values, with almost two thirds (63%) of awards being made for smaller projects of £20,000 or less, and 36% for projects of £10,000 or less.^[4] Comparison of the distribution for applications and awards suggests that applications for smaller value projects were slightly more successful than those for larger values. Overall, the data suggest that the fund was successful in reaching smaller and community-based organisations.

3.2 Geographical spread of funding

All organisations applying to the fund were asked to specify whether they operated across Scotland, across more than one local authority area, across one local authority area or within a specific community. As Table 1 shows, more than half of awarded projects (59%) were focused locally – either in a single local authority area or within a specific community. Almost one quarter (23%) operated across several local authority areas, and 18% were Scotland-wide.

Table 1: Geographical spread of applications and awards

Operating area of applicant organisation	Number applications	Number approved	% of awarded projects	Amount awarded	% of total value awarded	Average award size
Across Scotland	298	173	18%	£5,676,990	26%	£32,815
Across several local authority areas	355	215	23%	£6,124,492	28%	£28,486
Across one local authority area	526	338	35%	£6,203,216	29%	£18,353
Within a specific community	384	229	24%	£3,577,634	17%	£15,623
Total	1,563	955	100%	£21,582,333	100%	£22,599

The data on awards for each local authority presented here exclude applications from organisations delivering programmes across Scotland. The data include organisations which specified one or more specific local authorities as their programme delivery areas, as well as organisations that said they were delivering programmes in a specific community, based on which local authority they are located in.

An important limitation is that the available data do not provide detailed information about how amounts awarded to organisations working across more than one local authority were shared between the relevant local authority areas specified in their application. For the purposes of this analysis the amounts awarded between the relevant local authorities have been notionally allocated in proportion to each local authority's population. As such, the allocations of awards to local authorities presented here should be seen as indicative only.

Organisations from every local authority in Scotland were funded under the Open Application Process. The highest numbers of applications and approved applications were from organisations delivering projects in Glasgow and Edinburgh, the largest centres of population and the places with the highest numbers of third sector organisations (Figure 3). In absolute terms, organisations working in Glasgow City and the City of Edinburgh received the most funding, £4 million and £2.25 million respectively.

Organisations delivering projects in island areas and more rural areas such as Dumfries and Galloway and Scottish Borders submitted the lowest numbers of applications.

Figure 4 shows the rate of awards made per 100,000 people, to organisations working in different local authorities. The highest rate of awards per 100,000 people went to organisations working in Na h-Eileanan Siar (64), Midlothian (58), East Lothian (55), Orkney (54) and Clackmannanshire (54). The lowest rate of awards was to organisations working in Dumfries and Galloway, with 15 applications approved per 100,000 people; other local authorities with low rates of awards per 100,000 people included Moray (16), Fife (18), Highland (19) and Perth & Kinross (19).

Figure 5 shows the amounts of money awarded to organisations working in different local authorities, by head of population. Allocated on this basis, relatively higher levels of per capita funding went to organisations working in Na h-Eileanan Siar, Glasgow City, Orkney, Edinburgh and Inverclyde. The lowest levels of funding per capita went to organisations working in East Renfrewshire, South Ayrshire, Falkirk, Shetland and East Dunbartonshire.

Organisations from across Scotland were encouraged to apply for the Wellbeing Fund Open Application Process. However, in practice there was a high level of variation in the rate of applications and awards to organisations from different areas – even when relative population size is taken into account. This may reflect variation in levels of need, variation in Covid-19 case rates, awareness of the funding, ability to access alternative funding or support, density of third sector organisations and other factors.

It is important to note that all applications were considered on their own merits – not in relation to other applications. Based on analysis of the first round of funding, and on feedback from the TSIs, funders were aware of emerging gaps and needs, and made efforts to address these in the second round through strengthened guidance to applicants and awareness sessions with assessors.

Overall, the picture at the level of local authorities depends on what indicator is used. Consideration of the rate of applications, the rate of successful applications and the amount awarded per capita each give a different picture. The outcomes also depend on the density of third sector organisations in different areas, how many organisations in each local authority applied to the Fund and how much they applied for.

3.3 Analysis of awards in relation to deprivation levels and vulnerability to the impacts of Covid-19

For awards made to organisations which indicated that they were working in a specific local area, the spread of awards in relation to deprivation levels, and levels of vulnerability to the impacts of Covid-19, was analysed. This analysis is based on data provided at the application stage, and assumes that the location of the organisation address represents the location of the programme delivery. There were 384 such applications, of which 229 were successful. The total amount awarded to these organisations was £3,577,634.^[5]

Mapping these awards to the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD)^[6] shows that awards were much more likely to be made to organisations working in areas of higher deprivation. Overall, 48% of the amount awarded went to organisations working in SIMD 1 areas (the most deprived 20% of areas), and a further 24% went to organisations working in SIMD 2 areas (the second-most deprived quintile) (Figure 6).

While vulnerability to the negative impacts of Covid-19 appears likely to be concentrated in communities experiencing social, economic and health deprivation, other groups are also significantly affected across all areas of the population – notably older people, and people with particular health conditions that place them at higher risk of poor outcomes if they contract Covid-19.

At the outset of the pandemic, the British Red Cross developed a 'Covid-19 Vulnerability Index'.^[7] This index combines data on population demographics, health, economic status, geographic isolation and other indicators in order to give an overall ranking of different places across the UK in terms of their population's relative vulnerability to the impacts of Covid-19. As with the SIMD, postcode areas are classified into one of five quintiles, where the first quintile represents the 20% of areas with highest vulnerability to the negative impacts of Covid-19.

When using this ranking to assess the awards for which local delivery data is available (Figure 7), the findings show that awards were strongly directed towards areas with populations likely to be more vulnerable than average to the impacts of Covid-19. Overall, 40% of the amount awarded went to organisations working in areas that were in the highest Covid-19 vulnerability quintile.