Wellbeing Fund - open application process: evaluation

7. Lessons learned: Fund management and implementation

This section examines the process of setting up, managing and implementing the Wellbeing Fund Open Application Process from the perspectives of those working on the fund, as well as beneficiary organisations, to ask what went well, what were the challenges, and what lessons can be learned from this experience to inform future third sector funding mechanisms.

The data used in this section is taken from feedback on the process of applying for the fund provided by funded organisations in their end of grant monitoring forms, as well as interviews with those involved in setting up, managing and administering the Wellbeing Fund.

In total, six interviews were conducted; these were a mixture of individual and group interviews, with 16 people taking part in total. Interviews about the overall management of the fund were conducted with officials from Scottish Government, SCVO, and three funding partners – the Corra Foundation, Inspiring Scotland, and the Hunter Foundation – as well six representatives of four of the 32 third sector interfaces (TSIs), representing Edinburgh, Glasgow, East Renfrewshire, and Perth and Kinross. A group interview was also conducted with three application assessors (with a fourth providing information by email), who had assessed applications on behalf of the Hunter Foundation, STV Appeal, the Corra Foundation and Inspiring Scotland.

At the end of the reporting form, funded organisations were asked to complete an open-ended question to provide any final comments on their experience of applying for an being supported by the Wellbeing Fund. A random sample of 100 responses to this question were selected for analysis, and are included in this section.

Overall, both the funded organisations and those involved in setting up, managing and administering the fund were generally positive about the work of the fund and what it achieved, particularly given the short period of time in which it was created. Of the 100 funded organisations sampled, 80% gave wholly positive comments about their experience of the fund, while 6% gave a mixture of positive and negative comments/suggestions for improvements. 5% gave negative comments/suggestions for improvements only, and 9% did not comment.

It is important to note, however, that this sample only included organisations that were successful in their funding applications, meaning that there is likely to be an overall bias towards positive comments.

7.1 Overall management of the fund

7.1.1 Balancing speed and risk

"Really impressed by how quickly this fund was set up and started to distribute much-needed funding to groups who were determined to continue to support Scottish families during this ongoing crisis." (Wellbeing Fund recipient organisation)

Acknowledging the desire from third sector organisations and key stakeholder groups for emergency funding to be distributed rapidly, setting up the Wellbeing Fund quickly was a key priority for the Scottish Government and funders. As exemplified in the quote above, many of the Wellbeing Fund recipients commented positively on the speed with which the fund was created and began receiving and processing applications.

Echoing these comments, interviewees involved in setting up the fund also highlighted the speed of implementation as one of the main successes of the fund, as it allowed third sector organisations to act quickly so provide support to individuals and communities. As one SCVO representative explained:

"The Cabinet Secretary publicly launched the fund on the 18^th of March [and] we delivered a fully functioning £50 million grant programme on the 13th of April… In normal circumstances, grant programmes take months to develop and define… We got a lot of money out to voluntary sector organisations rapidly, [and through to] the public… we had food parcels on people's doorsteps within weeks, which was absolutely brilliant"

Interviewees suggested that this speed was possible because of the high priority placed on the fund within the Scottish Government, SCVO, and the funding partners, and historically strong relationships between these organisations which worked together to deliver the scheme. For example, the civil service was able to quickly assign extra staff from elsewhere in the organisation, including those with prior experience of working with the third sector, to work on the development and management of the fund, and to volunteer as assessors for the application process.

Partner organisations also dedicated large amounts of time and resources to setting up and managing the fund, and were able to bring in external assessors to support the application assessment process. For example, SCVO were able to use their internal expertise to develop and build the system for processing applications and train people to support the smooth running of the fund. TSI's were awarded £2 million in funding to support them to adapt and increase their ability to support the third sector response to the pandemic, including their work supporting the Wellbeing Fund.

Interviewees praised the long hours worked by their staff, while noting that the workload would have been unsustainable long-term. As one noted, they "…had people working seven days a week, probably working 14 to 15 hour days" to ensure that the fund was set up quickly.

Most of the interviewees also described an environment in which there was a relatively high "risk appetite" compared to non-emergency times. Because of the nature of the emergency, it was felt that there was a widespread acceptance – among ministers and civil servants, partner organisations, and the general public – that it was necessary to prioritise distributing money to organisations quickly. As a result, it was felt that the emergency situation justified less rigorous checks on applicant organisations than usual.

Interviewees acknowledged, however, that because of the speed with which the fund was set up, and with which applications were processed, it contained a number of "necessary imperfections", as both time and resources were limited in relation to the size of the project. For example, one funder noted that a small number of projects which were not primarily focused on responding specifically to the pandemic received funding because of the speed of the application assessments. Meanwhile, assessors felt that some funded projects did not meet the quality standards that would have been applied in non-emergency times. In particular, one assessor raised concerns about whether some organisations seeking to develop new areas of service provision may have lacked the expertise to deliver the new types of projects they sought to deliver.

Coordination of service provision was raised as a particular challenge by all interviewees, as one limitation of the fund was that it was not always possible to ensure that Wellbeing Fund awards were not being made to multiple organisations to deliver similar services in the same geographical areas, or that duplication was not occurring across different emergency funds. As one funder noted, where patterns of duplication of services were emerging though the applications process, there was not time to pause and deal with these situations, nor to think strategically about how to prevent duplications across the projects receiving Wellbeing Fund grants. For example, this funder explained that:

"We were seeing more projects [wanting] to employ mental health counsellors than there were mental health counsellors out there. So... we were processing all these mental health applications and we knew these [projects] are probably not going to achieve [their aims] because the pool of resource that they are trying to tap into doesn't equate to the volume of [counsellors] available. It was the same with food… we were looking at food [projects] and saying "we still haven't got this right either". But there wasn't time and space to [deal with these emerging issues].

Overall, though, the general sense among interviewees was that the right balance was struck between the speed of the fund and its risks and imperfections, as the main priority was to fund organisations to support those affected by the pandemic as quickly as possible. Thus while interviewees acknowledged that some of the funding may not have been used as efficiently as it may have been had there been fewer time constraints, they generally felt that the fund was as effective as it could have been given the circumstances. As one assessor summarised:

"Considering how quickly this [fund] was put together, I think it was very, very good. I can't imagine doing anything better given the constraints"

However, it was also acknowledged that the particular circumstances of March 2020 made it possible to get the fund up and running quickly because of a variety of factors unique to the emergency situation – the high priority of the fund for all organisations involved, the large amount of funding made available, the long working hours staff were willing to contribute in the short-term, the changing risk-appetite, and the clear need desire to get funding into communities as quickly as possible. As such, although the speed with which the fund operated was impressive – and highly beneficial for funded organisations and their service users – it was also acknowledged that this is not something that could or should be replicated in non-emergency funds to the same extent. Nevertheless, important lessons from this experience can be learned to help inform future funds in both emergency and non-emergency contexts.

7.1.2 Collaboration and partnership working

Most of the interviewees involved in the set-up and management of the Wellbeing Fund highlighted the importance of strong relationships between the national funding partners, SCVO and Scottish Government as central to the success of the fund in distributing funding quickly to third sector organisations. Interviewees from these organisations highlighted the fact that strong relationships had evolved over many years between some of the organisations involved in the project, meaning that it was possible to set up a team quickly which had the necessary skills and could complement and work well together. For example, there were already strong existing relationships in place between SCVO and funding partners, meaning that they felt they were able to work constructively alongside each other, with a high level of trust. As one funding partner explained:

"Because we had those relationships and understanding of each other, we could challenge each other without thinking we were stepping on egg shells… it allowed the space for those kinds of conversations… I think that helped a lot. And we were able to look at where our strengths were and look at capacity and use our wider networks to bring people in to help as well, which was another key thing"

As this interviewee suggests, many of those working on the fund also generally felt that the broad range of skills and knowledge each organisation brought to the project gave the right balance to be able to run the fund effectively. As an SCVO interviewee explained:

"Everybody played to their strengths: SCVO was able to come with our global view of the sector. We brought our tech platform knowledge. Funders brought their expertise around funding, due diligence, financial governance, assessments. Third sector interfaces brought local knowledge and expertise of organisations, but also that on-the-ground knowledge of what funding was going where from funders, but also what was being done locally… that really worked well [and] people gave it their all"

While in the main, interviewees highlighted the strength of the relationships between the different organisations working on the Wellbeing Fund, some also acknowledged that, particularly at the beginning of the process, some of the relationships involved in this partnership had been less strong. For example, interviewees highlighted communication issues early in the process, as Scottish Government officials worked to iron out the details of the fund, which led to misunderstandings and difficulties surrounding the precise role of each organisation in the process.

In particular, there was an initial lack of clarity surrounding the working out of a relationship between local and national organisations which would allow for each organisation to best bring their skills, knowledge and experience to the process. One specific challenge was the question of how best to balance the need for a simple, centralised fund with a single point of application – which would be easy to communicate, apply for and monitor – with the different needs and priorities of different localities across Scotland.

In the main, interviewees from Scottish Government, SCVO and the national funding partners felt that, despite initial challenges, the fund was successful in striking a balance between these concerns, by creating a centralised application process which was managed by SCVO, but which was dependent on the local knowledge supplied by local TSIs. This meant that the fund was able to make best use of the resources, skills and organisational structures of the funding partners and SCVO, and of the local knowledge of the TSIs via through a shared assessment process in which TSIs were engaged in bringing their local knowledge to bear in process of assessing each application. As one civil servant explained:

"This is the bit I think was really good. That […] every single TSI, they were all on the shared [assessment] platform, looking at the fit [of each applicant] with the local TSI area. [There was] a dashboard that would tell the assessor: "you have this many to check just for due diligence". If it passes that stage it goes to a TSI assessor who checks the fit with the local TSI landscape. And they're {..] good at spotting [things] "Oh, that's a really good charity, they're really plugged in locally" or "we've never heard of them, maybe they just set up a new charity and they're not plugged in".

Similarly, SCVO suggested that the local knowledge of the TSIs was valuable, and should be replicated in future:

"Bringing the TSIs into the assessment with the assessors, I think that is something we could do again in the future… Getting them involved to provide the local information around how these [applicant] organisations are respected in their communities and neighbourhoods and the services they're delivering, because that adds to the assessment and feeling comfortable with the due diligence and sending money out to these organisations, because we know [from the TSIs] that they're [the third sector organisations] doing good work."

However, the experiences of the TSI representatives were more mixed. While some TSIs were positive about their relationships with the organisations involved in the management of the fund, others felt that TSIs' assessment skills and local knowledge could have been better used. Some TSI representatives suggested that while most TSIs had relatively good working relationships with the national organisations at an operational level, they could also have been better engaged and regarded as "equal partners" at a strategic level, using their local-level knowledge to help shape design of the fund and ensuring that the funding was spread appropriately according to need. TSI representatives also felt that their work was often complicated by limited communication and a lack of information flowing to TSIs from the Scottish Government, SCVO and the funding partners.

7.1.3 Communication about the fund

Interviewees from all organisations indicated that the process of setting up and managing the fund highlighted some important lessons about the need for clear communication. Interviewees reported an initial lack of clarity for third sector organisations about the status, nature and timing of the Wellbeing Fund after it was announced by the Cabinet Secretary in March 2020. A couple of interviewees also suggested that third sector organisations initially received incorrect information about how the fund would be run and which organisations would be managing it. Interviewees noted that this lack of clarity meant that it was necessary for the organisations managing the fund – particularly the local TSIs and national funding partners – to spend a significant proportion of their time responding to queries and concerns about the fund from third sector organisations, rather than focusing on preparing to deliver the fund.

Similarly, some interviewees suggested that there was an initial lack of clarity among the partners involved in setting up and managing the fund over their specific roles and duties. TSI representatives, for example, reported receiving contradictory communications from Scottish Government and SCVO about their role in developing and managing the funding, with initial miscommunications about whether the fund would be administered nationally by the national funding organisations, or locally via the TSIs.

On the positive side, however, funded organisations were generally very positive about the communication about the fund to third sector organisations themselves. 96.7% of funded organisations report that the helpfulness of the information and guidance they received was "good" or "very good". Positive comments were also made about the communications and support received from the funding partners, with organisations praising them for quick, clear responses to their queries. As one funded organisation, whose funding was processed by the Corra Foundation, commented:

"Corra [Foundation] were great. When we had a question they responded faster than one might expect given the circumstances. Their relaxed approach was comforting."

Most interviewees also agreed that despite the initial lack of clarity about the roles of each organisation, the relationship between the national organisations and the TSIs helped to improve communication about the fund across Scotland. Many of the TSIs had strong links with local third sector organisations and local communities, allowing them to play a vital role in advertising the fund to local organisations, supporting organisations to make applications, and providing greater detail than would otherwise have been possible. As one of the funding partners noted:

"Having the third sector interfaces involved allowed for greater awareness [of the funding] within the communities to make sure that those organisations that need this money the most are aware and able to get applications in. Also, having the third sector interfaces with the knowledge of what the funds about in that greater detail, they're able to advise the organisations a bit more closely to make sure that they understand what the criterion guidance for the fund is, and making sure that the activities they're delivering are going to suit it."

7.1.4 Co-ordination with other emergency funds

As discussed earlier in the report, some funded organisations found themselves needing to change the focus of their projects because they were offering services (such as food provision) which were already being offered in the local area by other groups. While in part, as noted above, duplication occurred among different Wellbeing Fund projects, this kind of duplication was also reported by interviewees as occurring as a result of limited co-ordination between the Wellbeing Fund and other Scottish Government and non-government emergency funds serving similar purposes.

This was one of the main areas where interviewees identified challenges to the process of managing the Wellbeing fund, suggesting that it was not "well-dovetailed" with the other funds which made up the £350 million Scottish Government emergency funding. Another risk that this raised was that some organisations may have been funded by multiple organisations for the same project. As one TSI representative explained:

"I don't know how many occasions I kind of asked, well, who knows what's happening at the bigger jigsaw piece level? ... We know that there are organisations locally who are applying to local action partnerships for money and also applying into here, but nobody seems to be in that position to sit back and join all the dots and see what is actually happening… Can we honestly say that we don't know that organisations weren't being double-funded for bits of work? I don't think we're in a position where we can honestly say that."

Like this TSI representative, all those involved in running the Wellbeing Fund felt that the funds would have benefited from more clear management structures and oversight to ensure that all the separate funding streams were better streamlined in order to avoid both the risk of confusion for those seeking funding, and to avoid duplication of funding and services. However, this was challenging given the speed with which civil servants were expected to begin distributing the £350 million funding package which was agreed quickly by ministers as the severity of the pandemic became clear. As one civil servant commented:

"What didn't go so well was the manner in which the money was divvied up at the start, and then handed to a number of different areas of government… there needed to be better co-ordination, I think. I can understand why it happened [because of the speed with which emergency funding decisions needed to be made] but there was a bit of duplication. We were paying for food organisations and then [other funding streams were doing the same]. [Or…] we would fund somebody with Wellbeing Funding and then they would say that they had just been approached by a different [SG] fund to be an anchor organisation for another fund. So there was heaps of duplication. I think it needed a bit more thinking about how the money is divvied up, and then maybe having one senior civil servant who is accountable for the whole [£350 million] pot"

Partner organisations also expressed a desire for greater cohesion between the separate Scottish Government funds, suggesting that it would have been beneficial to have streamlined the application process for the Wellbeing Fund, the Third Sector Resilience Fund (TSRF) and the Supporting Communities Fund. In particular, it was noted that third sector organisations often needed support from both the Wellbeing Fund and the TSRF (which provided support for running costs for organisations whose income had been affected by the pandemic and lockdown). As one interviewee noted, a streamlined application process could have simplified the process for applicants:

"There were very few organisations that just needed one of the funds, and that comes back down again to making it simple for organisations to access the funds that they needed"

7.2 Fund implementation

7.2.1 Eligibility criteria

As noted above, almost all the funded organisations thought that the fund criteria and guidance were clear. A very small number of organisations noted that they found it difficult to work out from the application criteria whether or not they were eligible for the fund.

Some organisations questioned the relatively short amount of time available – 12 weeks – for spending the funding. For example, some organisations felt that some of the challenges arising from Covid-19 crisis were problems that would take longer than the 12 week period to resolve. As one organisation explained, the short timescales worked against them because the effects of the pandemic were much longer-lasting than initially anticipated in March:

"Funding to help people return to work as quickly as possible was unfortunately premature. The one-to-one support we have provided has centred around making sure that clients' confidence is maintained and that they are motivated and ready to take opportunities as they arise. Our overall experience of the fund is therefore that for some sectors of work the timescales of it were too short and that it should therefore have a longer available time before it has to be fully used"

A second area of concern for some interviewees was the minimum award amount stipulated by the Wellbeing Fund criteria, with organisations needing to apply for a minimum of £5,000. Given that grants from the Small Grants Fund were capped at £2,000, this was seen as problematic for those organisations for which a grant of between £2,000 and £5,000 would have been most beneficial. As one TSI representative commented:

"The minimum grant of £5,000 was sometimes a bit of a barrier… An organisation that would be well-placed to get up and deliver, and had people ready and waiting to [volunteer], because of the £5,000 threshold, couldn't get through the first hurdle... It didn't help those organisations that were very well placed at a community level"

Applicants also needed to demonstrate that the amount applied for would not exceed 20% of their annual turnover. With 57% of charities in Scotland having an annual income of £25,000 or less,^[9] many small community-based charities were unable to apply to the Wellbeing Fund Open Application Process because the minimum grant exceeded 20% of their annual turnover. However, it is important to note that other funds were available for smaller organisations outside of the Wellbeing Fund, such as the Response, Resilience and Recovery Fund managed by Foundation Scotland.

Similarly, some assessors highlighted the fact that they felt that some very good quality projects were rejected because organisations were required to show 12 months' of audited accounts, which, they noted, can be difficult for newer charities.

Finally, some interviewees also suggested that it may have been beneficial to take a more innovative approach to the funding criteria, for example by seeking to fund some of the new groups which were emerging in local areas in response to the crisis. However, given the speed at which the fund was operating, it was generally felt that funding organisations did not have the time or capacity to complete robust due diligence checks on non-constituted newly emerging groups. Some interviewees also expressed concerns funding such informal groups, citing potential for concerns relating to issues such as the vetting of volunteers and data protection.

7.2.2 Application process

"Overall, our experience was one of a slick, professional and well-coordinated process" (third sector organisation)

As highlighted by this respondent, recipient organisations were positive about the process for applying to the Wellbeing Fund. Organisations described the application process as "straightforward", "simple", "easy", "efficient" and "unobtrusive". Their comments praised the clarity and user-friendliness of the application form and guidance, and the fact that the application form requested what was generally felt to be a minimal and proportionate amount of information which was not burdensome to complete. This is reflected in the fact that, when asked specifically about the clarity of the application form and criteria, 97.4% of the funded organisations responding to the question stated that the application form and criteria were either "good" or "very good". Only one organisation (0.1%) stated that it was "poor".

Several organisations highlighted the benefits of such a simple process, with one commenting, for example, that:

"It would be great if funding processes moving forward were as simple and effective as this one, allowing more time and energy to be spent directly on supporting young people and their families".

Funding partner, assessor and TSI interviewees were also positive about the application process. Funding partners and assessors suggested that it would be important to review the extent to which the level of simplicity built into the Wellbeing Fund application form and process could be replicated in future funds. While acknowledging, as discussed above, that the particular context of the pandemic enabled a quicker application process which required less information from organisations than usual, they were keen to use this experience to review the amount of information collected in in other application processes, particularly for relatively small grants, with a view to lightening the bureaucratic load for applications.

While TSI representatives were also positive about the application process, and welcomed the lighter bureaucratic burden on applicants to the fund, some expressed concerns about shortening application forms for sector organisations. One TSI representative suggested that thorough application forms are important to give a clear indication to assessors of the quality and thoroughness third of proposed projects. It was therefore suggested that the focus should be more on improving the formatting and accessibility of application forms, rather than the content.

Very few recipient organisations reported problems with the application process. Among those that did report problems, most related to a relatively minor technical details relating to the completion of the online application form. Some organisations suggested that the application process would be easier to complete if the online form could be saved mid-process, rather than having to be completed in a single session. Given that responses were only requested from organisations that were successful in their funding bids, however, it may be the case that unsuccessful applicants encounter more problems with the application form.

Finally, one funded organisation reported receiving vague feedback on an initial unsuccessful application. This point was also raised in some of the interviews, with interviewees acknowledging that application support was limited as a result of the stretched capacity of SCVO, the funding partners, and third sector interfaces. Noting that it was clear that good feedback had enabled some first round applicants to improve their applications and ultimately be successful in the second round, it was suggested that future similar funds would benefit from increased capacity for helpdesk support.

7.2.3 Assessment process

Funded organisations wrote positively about the speed with which applications were assessed and payments were made, and the speed of communication between funders and applicants. Several pointed out how important this was for helping them support people most vulnerable to the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. As one organisation working with deafblind people commented:

"There are a range of inequalities for deafblind people. These were magnified probably more than most other disability groups during Covid-19 due to the age and profoundly isolating nature of deafblindness. Shielding and self-isolation was a triggering experience for many and caused high levels of anxiety. The speedy response of this fund was invaluable in allowing us to act quickly to prevent this stress and anxiety from becoming distress"

Several grant recipients and application assessors compared the speed of the process favourably with other funding application processes, with more than one describing the Wellbeing Fund process as "a breath of fresh air". Another funded organisation commented:

"Simple application process, a quick answer and swiftly transferred funds. Please do not underestimate the impact of this on our ability to provide support, a drawn out decision making process often means missed opportunities which was avoided in this case."

Interviewees highlighted the importance of the well-streamlined and straightforward system for processing applications that was put in place using Salesforce management and analytics software, with assessors particularly positive about what they viewed as a relatively simple, clear and well-designed assessment system.

A two-stage assessment process was used, in which TSIs assessed each application based on their own local knowledge of the applicant organisations and their suitability for the proposed projects. These assessments were then passed on to the funding partner organisations to conduct the second stage of the application process and due diligence. Some TSIs also took part in conducting due diligence checks. Each partner organisation – Scottish Government, SCVO, the funding partners, and the TSIs – used the same shared, cloud-based Salesforce platform, through which they were all able to track the progress of the assessment process and see what needed to be done via a live dashboard. As one civil servant described it:

"[Everyone] could see a dashboard with the number of applications currently queued, the money going out of the door, the location data… So there was a good sense of everybody working together on the same platform. It was a good example of how you connect the local to the national, and have those organisations working together as well. So you get your intel from the local organisations [local TSIs] who understand the priorities in their area. And you have the back office, the websites and overarching contact points, managed centrally by one of our trusted partners. For me that's the thing that's succeeded and should be replicated again if possible – getting [each organisation] geared up to be better equipped to work together as a team."

Despite the generally positive view from funded organisations and most interviewees, several TSI representatives highlighted two particular issues within the assessment process. First, some TSI representatives felt that their local knowledge and expertise sometimes appeared undervalued. It was noted among TSI representatives, for example, that in a small proportion of cases, decisions made by TSIs about whether an application should be considered for funding were overturned by other organisations, often without the TSIs having an opportunity to query or appeal these decisions.

Thus while interviewees from Scottish Government, SCVO and the national funding partners tended to speak positively of the TSIs' role in the assessment process, and several highlighted this as an important area to replicate in future funds, the general view among TSI interviewees suggests that it may be necessary to review how relationships can be strengthened and how such a process can make the most of their local knowledge and understanding.

A second challenge highlighted by a small number of TSI representatives and assessors was that because of the large budget and minimal eligibility criteria, there was little incentive for TSIs to reject applications for funding within their own local areas, as there were no budgetary limits set upon how many applications the TSIs should recommend for funding.

On the whole, though, national funding organisations praised the robustness with which TSI evaluated applications and suggested that this did not appear to be a substantial issue. Similarly, a number of TSI representatives did not agree that this was an issue.

7.2.4 Adapting the fund after first funding round

A key area where the fund was seen by interviewees to be particularly successful was in the implementation of two separate rounds of funding. In effect, a short initial round of applications acted as a pilot programme, the results of which were analysed to inform the remainder of the programme. This first round was open for a relatively short period, and the results of this were analysed, by Scottish Government, SCVO and funding partners, to show any patterns emerging in the application and approval rates, or types of organisations submitting applications or receiving awards.

Assessors were also asked for their feedback on the process and potential improvements. This information was then used to adapt aspects of the fund – such as the eligibility criteria and the way that it was targeted – to try to ensure the smooth running of the applications and assessment process, and that funding was reaching as many people in need as possible. As one civil servant explained:

"This was, this was absolutely invaluable. [It] enabled us to see that the application uptake from organisations representing disability groups, and black and minority ethnic groups, was low and also the success rates for them was low. So it enabled us to place a bit more emphasis in the application criteria for the second round just to encourage [applications] from them. And actually the improvement in both the application rates and success rates was really quite strong second time around, very reassuringly. So what we had second time round [in the second round] was a fund that was a lot more robust."

Funding partners agreed with this view, explaining, for example, that being able to see the lower application and approval rates among groups representing disability and black and minority ethnic groups allowed them to reach out to national organisations representing these groups which would be able to help support greater uptake from these groups. TSI representatives also reported making contact with groups representing black and minority ethnic communities after round one to encourage applications and support them through the process.

Several funders suggested that they would be keen both to repeat a similar model in future, and to build the lessons learned about lower rates of access among particular groups into future funding plants, to ensure equality of access to funding opportunities for different groups across society.

7.2.5 Assessing and meeting needs

Some interviewees expressed concerns over the extent to which some of the funded organisations had been able to accurately assess the needs of their client-groups. Highlighting the fact that a number of organisations needed to change the nature or focus of their projects after receiving funding, it was suggested that some organisations' communication with their client groups, and their understanding of their service users' needs, was not as strong as it could have been.

This view is supported, to some extent, by the findings reported in Section 4 of this report, which showed that almost one in ten projects (9.3%) delivered something different to their original proposal, with changes to anticipated demand and the emergence of unanticipated needs or priorities being the most common reasons for these changes. As a result, some funders suggested that the Wellbeing Fund process had highlighted a need for some third sector organisations to develop stronger relationships with, and understandings of, their client groups to better understand and anticipate their needs. They also suggested that it had also highlighted a need for funders to develop means of better identifying third sector organisations with strong understandings of their client groups. However, it was also noted that the was an expectation that a degree of flexibility would be needed for funded projects, because of the unique and uncertain nature of the situation facing third sector organisations and their service users.

TSI representatives also expressed the view that the nature of the Wellbeing Fund may not necessarily have been the most effective way of meeting the needs arising across different communities. One TSI representative suggested that because funding was awarded to third sector organisations through a competitive application process, this appeared to lead to over-provision in areas where third sector organisations were heavily concentrated, and under-provision in areas where there are fewer third sector organisations. In part, this was because projects were assessed individually based on the strength of the application, rather than in relation to known needs in geographical area where the application was made.

As such, some TSI representatives suggested that a future similar emergency fund could be improved by using local knowledge to identify the levels and types of need in each area, then distributing funding to local organisations accordingly, rather than using a competitive application process.