Supporting Communities Fund: evaluation

9. Communities Recovery Fund

Following the delivery of the SCF, the Communities Recovery Fund (CRF) was set up to support community groups, charities, social enterprises, and voluntary organisations who are supporting people and communities in responding to the challenges presented by Covid-19 as we moved into the recovery phase of the pandemic.

As the SCF was an immediate emergency fund and the CRF focused on recovery, the two funds were intended to fulfil complementary roles within the funding landscape. A number of CAOs involved in the SCF then went on to apply for funding from the CRF. Therefore, the follow-up survey also asked CAOs about their experience of the CRF to identify any additional learning gained through their experience of both funds, including whether they had applied any learning from their experience of the SCF to the CRF. Organisations were also asked to identify any additional learning or make any additional comments about their experience of the SCF or the difference between the two funds.

Of the 117 organisations that responded to the survey, 60 (51%) indicated that they were involved in the delivery of the CRF as well, 55 organisations said they were not involved and 2 organisations did not answer the question. Two of the organisations who indicated they were not involved in the delivery of the CRF reported that after their initial submission to the CRF they chose not to take their application forward. Of the 60 organisations that indicated they were involved in the delivery of the CRF, 53 provided an answer to the question on whether they applied any learning from their experience of the SCF.

9.1 Lessons learned from the SCF

Most commonly, organisations used the question on learning to highlight the positives of the SCF funding process, the CRF funding process or both. Organisations commenting on this theme highlighted positives around the simplicity of the funding criteria; the support they received from the IFPs; the organisation of the fund; the continuity provided by CRF (in relation to previously funded SCF projects); and that the CRF allowed more sustainable longer-term planning or allowed them to continue work they had started before the pandemic.

In addition to the positives identified by organisations, a range of learning was also highlighted. In the main, responses to the question on learning in this section reflected many of the key learning points from the SCF funding process (see section 7.3), indicating that organisations involved in both funds felt their experience of the SCF provided practical knowledge that they could apply to other funding exercises. Echoing previous responses, organisations commonly highlighted the importance of the support they had received from IFPs and the strength of the partnerships they formed as learning they would apply in delivering the CRF. One organisation, for example, reported that they had sent the initial application to the wrong funding stream and the advice they received from the IFP to appeal the decision had been invaluable.

Several organisations noted that they were taking forward the partnerships established during the delivery of the SCF and they were building on these during the delivery of the CRF. Two organisations noted that the learning they gained from the SCF allowed them to refine their applications and project proposals, building capacity which encouraged them to apply to the CRF.

As has been noted previously in section 7.3.3, organisations felt that their experience of applying to the SCF and delivering their projects had provided them with greater insight into the issues within their local community. Organisations felt that this knowledge allowed them to make their projects more responsive to the needs of those most in need. Furthermore, the first-hand experience of addressing these needs through their own projects allowed them to identify the gaps that still needed to be addressed. As a result, they were able to tailor their CRF projects to respond to unmet need.

The importance of effective communications was highlighted by two organisations. For one organisation this was linked to a need to avoid duplication and to make staff aware of what support was available. The other organisation commenting on this theme highlighted learning around communicating with beneficiaries, in terms of using a variety of mediums and using calls as a point of contact to check in on people.

Other areas of learning reported were each identified by one organisation. These learning points included a realisation that longer term funding is needed to tackle the underlying issues of poverty, and that creativity and innovation could be applied to service delivery. For one organisation, the SCF was different to many of the funds they had applied for before, in terms of requiring a more rapid, project-driven and proactive response. This organisation felt that their experience had put them in a better position to successfully deliver the CRF as they were able to develop and draw upon the systems and networks established during the SCF funding period. Echoing this sentiment, another organisation stated that the main difference between their experiences of the two funds was that, because of their involvement with the SCF, they had a better idea of what they were doing in applying to the CRF.

9.2 Challenges with the CRF

In addition to the learning points that were gained through their experience of the SCF, some organisations responding to this question (5 organisations) also highlighted challenges they had encountered during the funding period. Almost all of these comments wererelated to the CRF. Challenges reported by those 5 organisations included the criteria for the fund being unclear, issues relating to the online application form, confusion around the CRF being thought to be tied to the Adapt and Thrive Fund and one organisation who expressed concerns that they believed that they were ineligible for CRF funding due to their area not being classed as a priority even though they covered an area of extreme deprivation. It is important to note that although the CRF did prioritise certain areas for funding,.these were areas and communities identified as experiencing the greatest impact from the pandemic.For example, areas where Covid-19 has resulted in increased deprivation and or disadvantage. However, these areas may not necessarily have mapped onto areas with the highest levels of deprivation.

9.3 Differences between the SCF and CRF

Organisations who indicated they were involved in the delivery of the CRF were also asked if there was anything else they would like to add about their experience of the SCF. Of the 60 organisations that indicated they were involved in delivering the CRF, 47 organisations (78%) responded to the question on whether there was anything else they would like to add. Although organisations were prompted to highlight any differences between the two funds, many organisations felt their experience of both had been broadly similar.

Of the organisations responding to the question, 13 organisations felt the funds had been similar and 8 noted that although the funds each had a different focus, their aims were complimentary. Organisations who felt the funds were similar reported that the application, delivery, reporting, monitoring and evaluation process were much the same in being simple and straightforward to access. Organisations felt that for these reasons, there had been no great difference in their experience.

For the organisations identifying similarities there was a general consensus that these similarities had made it easier to apply the learning they had gained through their experience of the SCF funding process to the CRF:

"The Group operated with the he[l]p of a lot of funding during the pandemic - we found that most of these funds were compl[e]mentary to each other, and we utilised the learnings and experience, that we had gained working within the community over a number of years." (Community anchor organisation, Aberdeen)

In particular, one organisation's experience of the CRF reinforced to them the benefits of the light touch process as it allowed money to be moved quickly:

"Understand that a structured application and appraisal process is reasonable but the light touch process for the SCF allowed money to be moved to local delivery quickly, intermediary funding partners worked well and glad this process was the same for CRF" (Community anchor organisation, Highland)

Organisations expressed a range of views on the differences between the two funds. In general, organisations felt that the SCF funding process was quicker and more agile compared to the CRF. Some organisations described the CRF process as long, confusing and bureaucratic, although some of this perception may have arisen due to complexities surrounding the use of the online portal. One organisation noted this meant the support of the IFPs was crucial in allowing them to proceed with their application.

Other organisations disagreed on which fund was more flexible, with one organisation expressing the view that the SCF was more flexible and the CRF more focused in it's aims, while another felt that the CRF was the more flexible of the two funds.