Supporting Communities Fund: evaluation

10. Conclusions

The following chapter presents a brief summary of output and identifies key learning emerging from the findings, which may have relevance for future emergency funding initiatives.

10.1 Outputs

The SCF supported 465 organisations distributing £17,056,890. Grants were awarded to organisations working across all 32 local authority areas in Scotland. When analysed by Urban/Rural classification, a substantial amount of funding was delivered to smaller, rural communities, and island communities in particular, received higher amounts per head of population than other local authority areas. Most funding was distributed to areas of between 10,000 and 125,000 people, although just over a quarter of funding was distributed to projects in the Glasgow City Council area. A majority of the funding was delivered to projects operating within the two lowest SIMD quintiles, with the least deprived quintiles requesting and receiving the least amount of funding.

10.1.1 People supported

The number of people supported by the SCF was not fully possible to measure as not every project recorded the number of people they supported. Those who did, often provided estimates and the number of people supported was not reported consistently across the various projects. Numbers were therefore not comparable across projects, CAOs or geographically. Where information is available, some organisations chose to report the number of households supported while others reported the number of individuals. Where information was available, a reported 11,267 households and 173,676 individuals were estimated to be assisted by the projects, although this evaluation notes this is likely to be a significant underestimation.

The overall fund was not targeted at any specific groups, allowing organisations to identify needs in their own communities. Findings suggest that many projects focused on supporting people with particular needs, characteristics or vulnerabilities which made them more vulnerable to the specific social, health and impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic and the accompanying restrictions. Most commonly, organisations reported supporting vulnerable people; people with low or no income; people who are socially isolated; people shielding; people self-isolating and people with existing mental health conditions. Alongside supporting specific groups, many organisations also reported supporting people from an equality group as defined by the Equality Act 2010. However, as noted in sections 3.3 and 3.4, beneficiaries were not asked to identify as belonging to a particular group, so it is difficult to draw conclusions about recipient characteristics.

10.1.2 Activities delivered

Grants from the fund supported a broad range of projects, many of them delivering multiple activities and providing a wide range of support to their service users. Most CAOs delivered projects focusing on food support; basic provisions; support for volunteer management; medical prescription delivery; social outreach; digital inclusion and health and wellbeing support. Although, in many cases, activities were interlinked and targeted multiple areas of need. Therefore, in some cases planned activities fell into a number of categories and were not mutually exclusive.

The large majority of projects focused on food support in some form, either using funding to help a specific group to access food or taking a broader focus to support anyone in the local area with food and basic provisions. Commonly, organisations delivering projects focusing on food support used funding to establish or expand food provision through food banks in the community; to set up community fridges; or put in place systems to distribute surplus food to those in need. The focus on food support may reflect the stage of the pandemic during which the fund was available.

The findings suggest that the Covid-19 pandemic took a significant financial toll on the third sector, both as a result of a lack of opportunities for income generation and additional financial pressure due to the breadth of services they were expected to provide. For these reasons, many of the funded organisations requested funding for operating costs or to support volunteer management. These organisations focused on paying for staffing costs; supplementing core funding for the organisation; covering volunteer expenses and general management; and to pay for enhanced hygiene measures.

Many organisations recognised that people were confined to their homes, either through lockdown conditions, shielding or self-isolation, resulting in increased social isolation and impacting on physical and mental health, and general wellbeing. A fact that was reflected in the number of projects focusing on social outreach or health and wellbeing in some form. Projects delivered a wide range of activities designed to address these issues, including support with social interaction; medical prescription delivery; befriending calls; wellbeing packs; or through adapting their services to phone or online delivery.

The findings suggest that there exists a level of digital exclusion within communities, which has both been highlighted and compounded by the Covid-19 pandemic. Recognising the impact on face-to-face services and the rapid move to remote support, digital access was also a common focus for projects. These projects adapted their existing service to allow service users to access the service remotely and provided families and individuals with a range of digital devices to allow them to stay connected.

Reflecting the broad range of activities delivered, organisations also funded projects focusing on home and family life, financial assistance and advice services. These projects delivered activities such as educational and home-schooling support; parenting support; utilities assistance or direct financial support in the form of hardship funds or small grants; as well as funded projects that offered a range of advice services relating to welfare, debt and housing. A small number of organisations also delivered projects which aimed to improve community resilience to support communities to adapt to the realities of the Covid-19 pandemic.

10.1.3 Experiences of the fund

Overall, data from the monitoring forms and the surveys conducted with CAOs and IFPs suggests that the experience for those involved in administering the SCF was positive. Respondents to the surveys felt that the fund had been successful in its aim to distribute funding quickly to organisations at a local level and to support people who had been adversely affected by the Covid-19 pandemic. Those involved in the fund recognised that although the adoption of a light-touch approach had its issues in terms of assessing outcomes and monitoring impact, it was generally felt that the agility of the fund and the reduced burden on CAOs and funded organisations had allowed them to respond quickly to the needs of their local communities.

It is also important to note that the SCF was administered as part of a much wider funding landscape. For example, a number of organisations reported in their monitoring forms that they had received funding from other sources to fund other areas of support or organisational delivery. Not only does this make it difficult to directly attribute specific outcomes to the activities delivered under the SCF where organisations have reported multiple funders but without a robust evaluation of all the emergency funds, the level of duplication is impossible to determine.

10.2 Key learning

This final section summarises the key lessons learned from this evaluation that may be able to inform approaches to funding in the future. This section considers what aspects of the funding process worked well and could be taken forward and adapted for other third sector funds as well as areas where improvements could be made.

10.2.1 Emerging needs

CAOs identified a number of needs that emerged through the course of their projects. In general, these needs tended to map on to gaps in provision that organisations identified in the course of delivering their projects. Many of the organisations involved in the SCF reported that they were already taking action to address emerging needs. However, these needs could be used as potential areas of focus for future funding initiatives as third sector organisations move into the recovery phase.

Most commonly organisations highlighted emerging needs relating to poverty and unemployment, reflecting the severe financial impact the Covid-19 pandemic has had on communities in terms of unemployment, loss of earnings and increased financial insecurity. After poverty and unemployment, needs relating to health and wellbeing were also seen to be a priority going forward. Organisations reported that the pandemic has had a considerable impact on the mental health of individuals.

Organisations involved in the SCF also felt that, recognising that the third sector had played a key role in the response to the Covid-19 pandemic, greater support for community organisations should be a priority going forward in terms of sustained support and investment. Other priorities identified by organisations included focusing on digital exclusion as a priority, community recovery and increasing staff and volunteer capacity.

10.2.2 Effective communications

The evaluation of the fund highlighted the importance of effective communications. Communications between those involved in the fund were generally successful, where organisations highlighted that communication between CAOs and IFPs had been key to the delivery of their projects. The support provided during the funding process through the partnership with IFPs was described by the CAOs as invaluable and in some cases gave them the confidence to apply for CRF funding when they otherwise would not have done so. Positive communications between the various IFPs were also reported, where partners highlighted that effective communication and the strength of the relationships between the IFPs had been key to the speed of the initial application process.

Although communication between those involved in the fund was viewed as positive overall, in a few specific instances communication could have been improved. IFPs highlighted a need to improve the communication of the funding criteria to CAOs during the application and assessment process, including the nature, scope and timing of the fund. However, this may also be a consequence of the built-in flexibility of the fund.

Both IFPs and CAOs also highlighted the need for better communication between those administering the fund and funded organisations during the funding period to ensure adequate coordination and to reduce the possibility of duplication. In particular, a need for better communication and coordination between CAOs and the funded organisations working in the same local area was highlighted, to allow organisations to effectively identify unmet need. These challenges suggest a need for clear lines of communication and management structures to be put in place to ensure that future funds are well coordinated and to allow for clearer communication with funded organisations, LAs and others.

Most of the partners involved in the set-up and management of the SCF felt that the initial application process worked well due to effective communication and the strong relationships between the IFPs and the Scottish Government, and reported that these relationships were central to distributing funding quickly to third sector organisations. There was some evidence that communication around the funding criteria in the initial funding phase could have been improved as a lack of clarity sometimes made it difficult to identify who was eligible and which activities could be funded. Better communication around the funding criteria and the initial funding phase may have addressed some of the negative perceptions/experiences expressed in response to the IFP survey.

10.2.3 Partnership working between Scottish Government, IFPs and CAOs

This evaluation highlighted the importance and effectiveness of establishing and building on strong relationships to successfully deliver funding efficiently and at pace. Both the CAOs and IFPs felt that all those involved in delivering the fund brought their own skills and expertise, allowing them to deliver a fast-paced, coordinated and joined-up response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Both IFPs and CAOs highlighted the high level of trust established between those involved in the delivery of the fund.

It is possible that future funding initiatives could benefit from continuing to build on the relationships established during the course of delivering the SCF as well as those partnerships formed under other emergency funds. In particular, using the local knowledge and expertise of CAOs and other third sector organisations could inform the initial direction of future funding initiatives, providing focus and reducing the under-use of the services delivered. The findings suggest that continued prioritisation of structures and partnerships that enhance community resilience would help support the fragile community and voluntary sector. In particular, there is a need to maintain these networks to prevent the loss of the partnership gains made through the SCF funding process and so these partnerships can be mobilised again if required.

10.2.4 Pace, simplicity and the light touch approach to funding

CAOs and the IFPs involved in the administration of the SCF generally felt that the pace, simplicity and light approach to the funding process had been successful. In particular, the light touch approach to funding had been central to the agility of the fund, reduced the burden on the funded organisations and allowed grants to reach those most in need in communities throughout Scotland. Some IFPs involved in the administration of the fund felt that the approach to the funding process was imperfect in some ways, in terms of spending and direct impacts being hard to evidence for the purposes of monitoring and evaluation. IFPs also reported that the lack of clarity around the funding criteria made meaningful comparisons between projects challenging during the application process, meaning it was sometimes difficult to determine if projects were eligible for funding. However, the overall positive reception of the fund does raise questions around whether future funding initiatives could be simpler and faster, while minimising the burden placed on third sector organisations.

Some organisations and IFPs also highlighted the relative agility of third sector organisations in responding to the needs of the community compared to LAs. However, without further research specifically focusing on the LA response, this evaluation is unable to draw any comparisons between the third sector and LA responses to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Given that data required to evaluate end user reception or outcomes was for the most part not available, the experiences of those involved in the administration and delivery of the SCF suggest that several steps could be taken to improve future funding initiatives. Firstly, reviewing the amount and format of information requested in both application and monitoring forms, to identify ways to provide focus and direction to organisations without being overly onerous. Secondly, reviewing funding criteria to improve the clarity of information provided to those involved in administering the fund, and to CAOs, to reduce confusion and improve accessibility to applicants. Thirdly to consider ways in which some aspects of the light touch approach could be taken forward to improve future funding initiatives, with the aim of striking a balance between speed, flexibility and risk. Finally, there is also a balance to be struck between agility and responsiveness in an incredibly time-sensitive situation, with the need to evidence outcomes for public spend and this should be carefully considered going forward if a full evaluation is required.