Supporting Communities Fund: evaluation

5. Challenges affecting project delivery

The analysis in the following chapters is based on a combined sample of data from the 117 CAOs that responded to the follow-up survey and the 20% sub-sample of monitoring forms. In addition to the challenges that have been identified and discussed elsewhere in this report, CAOs identified a number of challenges that they believed had an impact on project delivery. Of the 161 organisations included in the analysis sample, 40 (25%) of organisations identified challenges affecting project delivery.

General challenges identified by organisations related to coordination; a lack of capacity; low demand and uptake of services; and issues establishing relationships with other organisations under lockdown conditions. Organisations responding to this question in the follow-up survey also identified further challenges in identifying where there were gaps in provision under lockdown conditions; a lack of volunteer capacity; a lack of cultural understanding within the organisation that limited their reach to certain groups; a lack of demand and uptake for certain services; challenges around digital access; and setting up and delivering the projects. Organisations also reported a range of difficulties in attempting to target specific groups.

5.1 Low uptake

Given the specific and unprecedented circumstances of the Covid-19 pandemic were so unique, it was difficult for organisations to accurately assess initially what the uptake would be for their projects. Therefore, it is perhaps unsurprising that organisations who identified challenges in delivering their projects most commonly reported lower than expected demand or uptake of services. Organisations highlighted a number of factors affecting uptake of services, including virtual fatigue, issues around publicity and awareness, demand being affected by weather conditions and, in one case where hardship grants were offered, the positive impact of the furlough scheme, which opened to applications after the SCF was commenced.

In relation to virtual fatigue, one organisation delivering an online Life Coaching programme felt this had in part led to low demand as the pandemic progressed and people became increasingly weary of accessing services online:

"Whilst we've found that our Life Coaching programme has been very well received for those engaged in our services and many have reported an improvement in their mental health, we are seeing a fatigue across the board for virtual or remote sessions. It's a limitation, but as long as we're continuing to offer this option for people, that is making a huge difference to those requiring this specialist, person-centred service based on our evaluations." (Community anchor organisation, Edinburgh)

Another organisation delivering emergency fuel vouchers found that, alongside a lack of awareness, demand was lower than expected due to higher than average temperatures during the funding period, suggesting demand was likely to increase over the colder months:

"The total demand was lower than expected which has been traced back to issues around publicity and awareness and general lower demand due to higher than average temperatures during the period the scheme was running. Successful applicants were very positive about the impact the short relief would provide." (Community anchor organisation, Comhairle nan Eilean Siar)

Although low uptake was the most common barrier reported when asked directly about barriers to delivery, elsewhere respondents also described high uptake of services, and in some cases overwhelming need. One organisation reported that they found the high numbers of people requiring their services overwhelming:

"Other barriers included the sheer volume of people needing help, particularly around food provision." (Community anchor organisation, South Lanarkshire)

5.2 Pride and stigma

Pride and stigma among targeted groups were also noted as a barrier by organisations, particularly in the context of low uptake of services, where these issues limited the willingness of people to engage with services and access support. Most commonly, these barriers were reported by organisations operating in smaller or more rural communities where it was more likely that people knew each other, resulting in a perception that there was a level of embarrassment attached to asking for support.

One organisation working with people on low or no income or who were self-isolating, identified stigma around the provision of food parcels and put in place measures to increase anonymity to try and alleviate this perception:

"[B]eing a small community we had to address the issue of stigma around food parcels. Food provision [became] part of our swap [s]hop initiative and this helped to break down that barrier and increased the use. Made food voucher scheme as anonymous as possible to reduce barriers to take−up. There are no written records of claimant names — they are known only by their voucher number" (Community anchor organisation, Highland)

As a result of these barriers, one organisation felt that the key lesson they had learned was that the likelihood of pride and stigma being a barrier should be the starting point for the development of any scheme providing support to the community:

"The initial difficulty was "Pride", however once the advertising has explained the protection for anonymity, we found members started to join and then word of mouth from those using it did the rest […] Pride and stigma for recipients has to be the starting point for any design of a scheme. Thus the greater the protection of anonymity the better" (Community anchor organisation, Aberdeenshire)

5.3 Resources

Organisations also identified challenges affecting project delivery relating to resource scarcity and capacity, including a lack of staff and volunteer capacity, a lack of expertise and coordination, a lack of resource management and difficulties sourcing hygiene and sanitising supplies such as PPE and handwash.

One organisation felt that, although resource scarcity had made it difficult for them to deliver everything they aimed to, the key challenge encountered was in relation to coordination. For this organisation, the specific circumstances of operating under lockdown conditions made it difficult to identify gaps, coordinate with other agencies and plan provision without being able to meet face-to-face.

Other organisations identified issues around volunteer capacity where the level of volunteer support had impacted on the services they were able to deliver. For example, one CAO had intended to fund an organisation to deliver food supplies and emergency funding to the most vulnerable people in the community. However, as the funding period progressed it became clear that the organisation did not have the volunteer capacity to take the project forward. Due to the flexibility of the fund they were still able to adapt and repurpose the funds to deliver impact for the community, where instead the CAO and other organisations in the community worked together to set up a foodbank in the local church. Another organisation working with a range of groups highlighted challenges around the continuously changing availability of volunteers as the circumstances of the pandemic changed and volunteers returned to work:

"An added challenge was that we and our IFPs were working with reduced staffing and many from home. Volunteer support was key, and this was also an ever-changing availability as some volunteers were available while furloughed but then returned to work." (Community anchor organisation, South Ayrshire)

Closely related to a lack of resources, some organisations found the sheer number of people in certain areas needing support and the speed at which the situation was changing overwhelming:

"[T]hings were changing so fast due to the pandemic and the issues arising from it that we had to pay attention to what was changing and what the needs of people were. Sometimes the sheer volume of what was going on became overwhelming at times." (Community anchor organisation, Aberdeenshire)

5.4 Challenges supporting specific groups

Organisations responding to the follow-up survey were asked if they supported any specific groups in delivering their projects, and if so did they experience any challenges or barriers in reaching these groups. As noted earlier in this report (see section 3.3 and 3.4) this analysis is based on self-reported data by the CAOs and may not reflect how people chose to identify themselves. Organisations were not specifically asked to identify challenges relating to supported groups in their monitoring forms but where issues were identified these are reported alongside the responses from the follow-up survey.

Of the 117 organisations that responded to the follow-up survey, 114 provided an answer to the question on supported groups. Of these, 43 (38%) organisations identified specific challenges or barriers, while other organisations responding to the question tended to describe the process through which they supported specific groups and the ways in which this prevented challenges from arising.

Specific challenges encountered by organisations related to a lack of digital access and skills both within the organisation and among beneficiaries, difficulties in identifying beneficiaries and connecting with them during the funding period, issues of pride and stigma, people being unaware of the services and support available and a lack of cultural understanding in trying to reach minority ethnic groups.

Echoing findings that are discussed elsewhere in this report, organisations identifying specific challenges in supporting specific groups often highlighted a lack of digital access as a key barrier affecting the success of project delivery. Most commonly, organisations found it difficult to reach people with no digital access in terms of raising awareness of the services on offer and delivering support to these groups.

Older people in particular seemed to be acutely affected by a lack of digital access. In some cases, older people did have access to the internet but simply did not have the skills and/or confidence to access services online. For example, one organisation reported older people were more difficult to reach because of a lack of digital skills, meaning those involved in the project only became aware of the need for support when the situation became severe:

"Older people, of which there are a high number locally, difficult to reach due to lack of knowledge / use of internet. However, we were only made aware of the need in some households when the situation became severe - due to some people not wishing to ask for help locally." (Community anchor organisation, Comhairle nan Eilean Siar)

Organisations noted that they were able to overcome digital barriers through various means such as telephone support, newsletters, leaflet drops and direct contact with those who were known to other services:

"Many groups were not keen to set up online sessions and opted to wait to get back to face-to face meetings in the new year. However, some did and their members who did not have digital experience acquired new skills through […] volunteer support thus enabling them to join online community group sessions." (Community anchor organisation, Perth and Kinross)

"We found there is no simple way to reach everyone in the community, especially in a rurally isolated one. [N]ot everyone does social media and dropping flyers through doors doesn't necessarily reach everyone because of the isolated nature of many properties. We used both extensively and also word of mouth to try and reach anyone who might have been in need of assistance." (Community anchor organisation, Scottish Borders)

Digital exclusion more generally was also highlighted as a barrier to accessing support for people living in rural communities. As a result, organisations supporting these groups reported a heavier reliance on telephone support and in-person visits. Organisations reported a perception that these methods of engagement were more time consuming and required more capacity and as a result, made it more difficult to reach those in need.

One organisation working with women who had experienced domestic abuse reported that a lack of digital access made it difficult to get resources out to those women that needed it most:

"Main barriers were due to Covid getting resources out to women who need them most. Our staff were all working from home. Some of the women we support were not able to use technology to enable them to get better information and support. This made it more challenging for our organisation too." (Community anchor organisation, Glasgow)

As a result of the specific circumstances of the Covid-19 pandemic, another organisation working with vulnerable and socially isolated people felt that these groups now faced new and additional barriers, due to the move to remote services and the amount of engagement taking place online. Therefore, this organisation had to develop other activities to connect with people:

"Yes, the groups we support and the individuals are the hardest to reach. They face multiple barriers - especially in terms of digital inclusion which is how many activities and how much engagement was now taking place. Significant proportions of the SCF fund was devoted to getting people connected - training, providing online platforms, devices, data and broadband connection. Even that was not enough and we had to be creative - use the outdoors for one to one in person meetings, use virtual walks (phone based walking 'together' but in separate places) and we made use of the post and Freepost service we established as part of this funding - we also required huge numbers of volunteers to support and reach these groups." (Community anchor organisation, Edinburgh)

Organisations supporting minority ethnic groups highlighted a range of challenges and barriers they encountered in delivering their projects, including a lack of confidence in accessing services, a lack of cultural understanding among organisations around the needs of specific groups, and individuals without identification being unable to access statutory services. For example, one organisation targeting online language support at refugees identified language issues and a lack of relationships with targeted communities as barriers limited the number of people signing up to these sessions:

"There were plans to begin the Zoom language support earlier in the project delivery, however this was delayed for different reasons. There was a significant wait for the iPads to be delivered however this was not the principle difficulty. It proved to be a challenge to identify potential participants for this aspect of the project, despite the support of the [community anchor]. It became clear that the aforementioned language barriers and the absence of any significant prior relationship with the community made it difficult to encourage people to sign up." (Funded organisation, Dundee)

Two organisations responding to the question identified barriers in reaching young people. One organisation targeting young unemployed people found that access to connectivity via phone or broadband was problematic for this group, while the other found it more difficult than expected to engage teenagers in online projects and workshops.

5.5 Other challenges

Finally, organisations identifying challenges also reported issues around the processes they used in setting up and delivering the projects. Most of these challenges are discussed in more detail elsewhere in this report, however, organisations commenting on this theme commonly reported having to adapt the method of delivering the project, such as having to deliver activities on foot, not being able to enter people's houses and their normal delivery contractors not operating. These challenges often resulted in extensions to the timeline of the project, overspends, monitoring and reporting limitations.