Wellbeing Fund - open application process: evaluation

8. Conclusion

8.1 Outcomes

The Wellbeing Fund Open Application Process supported 955 organisations, distributing £21,582,333. Grants were awarded to organisations working across all 32 local authority areas of Scotland. A large proportion of grants were awarded to relatively small, locally-focused organisations, with 59% of grants supporting projects operating within either one or two local authority areas.

The findings suggest that the majority of projects were focused on supporting people with particular needs, characteristics or vulnerabilities which meant that they would have been likely to be more affected by the social, health, and economic consequences of the pandemic and subsequent lockdown than average. For example 30% of projects reported supporting people who had Covid-19 symptoms or lived with someone who did; 71% supported those who were shielding; and 71% supported those who were financially at risk as a result of the pandemic. In addition, 68% of projects reported supporting those with mental health problems; 49% reported supporting people at socio-economic disadvantage; 43% reported supporting people with disabilities; and 32% reported supporting those with substance dependencies.

A wide range of projects were supported, many of them offering wide-ranging support to their service users. The most common areas that projects focused on were: mental health (76%); food (44%); physical health (27%); and home life and/or housing situation (25%). Support relating to employment, money and digital inclusion were also relatively common areas of focus.

Overall, interviewees from Scottish Government, SCVO, national funding organisations, third sector interfaces, and the organisations funded by the Wellbeing Fund were positive about the ability of the Wellbeing Fund to distribute funding quickly to third sector organisations in order to support people whose lives had been affected by the Covid-19 pandemic. While recognising that the speed and scale of the project meant that some "necessary imperfections", it was generally felt that the quick distribution of funds was the most important factor in the context of the crisis, and that the Wellbeing Fund helped a large number of third sector organisations to respond quickly to the needs of their communities.

8.2 Lessons learned

This final section summarises the key lessons learned from this evaluation, to help third sector policy makers and funders better prepare for future emergency and non-emergency funding situations. These consider both the aspects of the fund which went well and could be replicated in future third sector funds, and those areas where improvements could be made for similar future initiatives.

8.2.1 Emerging needs

Funded organisations identified a number of needs that emerged throughout the course of their projects which could be used to help identify potential areas of support both for future initiatives and as third sector organisations continue to work to respond to the ongoing pandemic.

Most significant was the number of organisations highlighting digital inclusion as an emerging need, having faced issues including clients being unable to access to laptops, tablets, phones and internet connections, as well as low digital skills and confidence.

Mental health needs were also commonly highlighted as significant emerging needs, with organisations concerned about exacerbations of existing mental health conditions as a result of the pandemic, as well as newly emerging mental health issues and concerns about limited access to mental health support for those who need it.

8.2.2 Overall co-ordination of separate third sector funding streams

The process evaluation highlighted concerns both that duplication of funding and services was felt to be a relatively common challenge, and that many third sector organisations needed to make multiple separate applications to separate Scottish Government funds.

These challenges suggest a need for a clearer management and oversight structure within Scottish Government in emergency funding situations, to ensure that funds are well-coordinated and to minimise the risk of duplication, and to allow for clearer communication with local authorities and others. The implementation of a smaller number of clearly distinct funds may also have helped to avoid duplication and ensure greater clarity for applicants.

For future funds in both emergency and non-emergency situations, the creation of a single application process through which organisations can apply for all relevant funds would reduce the administrative burden on applicants and funding providers.

The experience of the Wellbeing Fund also suggests that future funding exercises - both in emergency and non-emergency situations – would benefit from the development of a needs-based approach based on dynamic local-level assessment of emerging needs, to ensure that funds are targeted as accurately as possible with a smaller risk of duplication.

8.2.3 Clarity of communication

The process evaluation highlighted that clarity of communication could have been improved, both between the organisations managing the fund, and to third sector organisations. Those involved in the management process highlighted the need for clear early dialogue, agreement and communication between Scottish Government, funding organisations, and the third sector interfaces about the purpose of the proposed funds and the specific roles of each partner organisation.

It was also clear that both those managing the fund and third sector organisations themselves would have benefitted from clearer communication to third sector organisations about the nature, scope and timing of the fund at the time that it was publicly announced.

8.2.4 Collaborative working between Scottish Government, SCVO, national funding partners and third sector interfaces

This evaluation highlighted the importance and effectiveness of strong collaborative working between Scottish Government, SCVO, national funding partners and third sector interfaces, with each organisation bringing complementary skills, resources and expertise to the project, alongside a high level of trust between these organisations. This was seen by many stakeholders as a strength which has been developed over a long period of time.

In both emergency and non-emergency settings, future funding initiatives could benefit from continuing to build on and enhance these collaborative working relationships. In particular, using the local knowledge and expertise of third sector interfaces and others during the application assessment process could be an important element in the design of future initiatives. It would also be beneficial to continue using shared, cloud-based application assessment platforms to ensure the type of streamlined assessment process modelled in the Wellbeing Fund project.

8.2.5 Speed and simplicity of application processes

Third sector organisations and those involved in the management of the Wellbeing Fund highlighted the speed and simplicity of the application process as one of its main successes. This not only suggests that this is something to be replicated in any future emergency funding exercises, but also raises questions about how third sector funding processes in non-emergency situations could be simpler, faster and more inclusive.

While acknowledging that the amount of time and resource used to set up and implement the Wellbeing Fund was much greater than would be available in non-emergency situations, the experience of this fund nevertheless suggests that several steps could be taken:

• Firstly, reviewing the quantity of information requested in application forms to seek ways to reduce the amount of paperwork required from applicants without diminishing the quality of information provided;

• Secondly, reviewing the formatting and accessibility of application and monitoring forms to seek ways to improve the ease and speed with which forms can be completed;
• Thirdly, reviewing the simplicity and accessibility of fund application criteria to improve accessibility of funding;
• Finally, reviewing the level of "risk appetite" in non-emergency funding situations, to assess the risks and opportunities involved in lowering the overall level of documentation required from third sector funding applications.

8.2.6 In-project improvements through multiple funding rounds

The use of more than one funding round was highlighted as an important feature of the Wellbeing Fund process, allowing the scheme adapt and improve based on findings from analysis of distribution of funding in the first round. This allowed the fund managers to adapt the second round to encourage and support more applications from organisations working with groups or communities that had been under-represented in the first round, such as black and minority ethnic communities and groups representing people with disabilities.

This practice could be repeated more regularly in both emergency and non-emergency funding exercises in order to improve the equity of distribution of funding, and give funders a greater real-time understanding of any funding gaps and the reasons for them.

8.2.7 Identification of needs

Several challenges relating to the accurate identification of needs were raised during the funding process, with suggestions that the inability to identify needs effectively and to provide a fully coordinated response at national and local levels, may have led to duplication and under-provision in different areas. Without quantitative data to demonstrate this duplication and under-provision, however, it is not possible to comment on the extent to which this occurred.

For future funds – both in emergency and non-emergency settings – it is suggested that funders, SCVO and the Scottish Government consider developing methods for gaining a greater understanding of needs across Scotland. This should include making greater use of the local knowledge of TSIs, local authorities, and health and social care partnerships alongside funders' own local knowledge. It should also involve drawing on international humanitarian expertise and good practice in rapid assessment and coordination of large-scale emergency responses. It may also be beneficial for funders to seek to develop methods for better recognising and assessing applicants' level of understanding of their client groups' needs during the application process.

Several other measures could be considered for third sector fund in emergency situations:

• First, considering methods for encouraging and supporting third sector organisations and others to conduct rapid needs assessments in emergency contexts to better understand and respond to client groups' needs;

• Second, Scottish Government, SCVO and funders could consider the risks and benefits of using a funding model that focused primarily on meeting known needs, rather than awarding funding on the merit of each individual application;
• Third, further research could be conducted to fully assess the extent to which the Covid-19 emergency response – including the interaction of different funds and agencies – did successfully meet the needs of individuals and communities.

8.2.8 Organisational preparedness for emergency situations

This suggests that there is a need to consider ways in which the Scottish Government could be better prepared for emergency situations affecting the third sector. It also suggests that it may be beneficial for Scottish Government and funding organisations to consider how to encourage and support third sector organisations to improve their preparedness for emergency situations, including having the skills and structures in place for remote working, supporting staff and volunteer wellbeing, and the ability to rapidly assess emerging needs among client groups.