Supporting Communities Fund: evaluation

8. Perspectives on the funding process

This chapter principally considers the experiences of the IFPs and their perspective of the SCF process (although learning is also identified from the CAOs), including their views on the funding process and their experience of working in partnership with both CAOs and other IFPs. The role of the IFPs was key to the delivery of the SCF as evidenced in Chapter 6, particularly in supporting anchor organisations to develop successful bids and administering and distributing funds. The SCF involved 9 IFPs working across Scotland to administer and distribute funds as well gathering monitoring and reporting information on expenditure and outcomes. A survey was distributed to the 9 IFPs in February 2021. Due to a technical problem, some surveys were completed in February 2021 and others in August 2021. This may have introduced some issues related to comparability, due to differences in the time elapsed since completion of the funded activities.

8.1 Perspectives from the intermediary funding partners

Similar to the anchor organisations, IFPs were also asked about their experience of delivering the SCF and how they felt about the funding process. All the partners responding to the survey provided a response to this question. Generally, the IFPs felt that, given the specific circumstances of the Covid-19 pandemic and the need to get the money out to the community as quickly and efficiently as possible, the funding process had worked well. IFPs felt that due to the pace at which they were expected to respond to the pandemic, the light touch approach to the funding process had been necessary, although this had required a greater degree of trust in community anchor organisations and made monitoring more challenging. For the most part, partners involved in the administration of the fund felt it was difficult to answer whether they would do anything differently next time because the circumstances of the pandemic had been so unique.

8.1.1 Application process

Echoing the findings from the data gathered from the anchor organisations, IFPs involved in the administration of the SCF generally felt their experience of the application and funding process had been positive. Most of the partners involved in the set-up and management of the SCF felt that the initial application process worked well due to 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.

Some IFPs worked directly with organisations to draft their proposals collaboratively. These partners expressed the view that adopting this approach allowed organisations to focus on their pandemic response without having to worry about completing their applications when they didn't have the capacity or 'headspace' to do so. IFPs also emphasised that the opportunity to review proposals for funding early on meant that CAOs could focus their proposals, remove or change ineligible elements and bring a more rounded package to the table for decision, ultimately reducing time spent on revisions or amendments.

Other IFPs acted merely as assessors and did not contribute directly to the funding proposals. These partners reported that they provided clarity on the application process and funding criteria, answered questions and requested more information on behalf of the CAOs when required. Another partner highlighted that the simplicity of the fund and the ability to work directly with organisations on their applications worked well, with the result that organisations considered the needs of the community and the most effective way to meet them. Ultimately, it was felt that the processing and payment of grants with minimal paperwork was good for both IFPs and organisations in terms of reducing the burden on those delivering the fund.

IFPs highlighted that effective communication and the strength of the relationships between the IFPs had been key to the speed of the initial application process. In particular, the time, knowledge and expertise contributed by those IFPs who were already established funders was central to the success of the process and made it as easy as possible for applicants. However, one IFP felt that although the more experienced IFPs were a valuable asset, there was a perception that these partners targeted a disproportionate amount of funding towards CAOs that they had funded previously. Recognising the sentiment in this response, it is noted that the intention of the initial funding process was to use existing relationships to distribute funding quickly and efficiently to those that needed it.

8.1.2 Unsuccessful applications

IFPs responding to the survey were also asked to identify reasons for unsuccessful applications. Most partners who provided a response to this question felt that there were very few applications that were not progressed and one partner reported that they had no applications that did not progress. There was a perception among the IFPs that the main reason for the small numbers of rejected applications at the expression of interest stage was the collaborative approach taken to the application process as it allowed the proposals to be reviewed and amended before they were assessed by the oversight panel, resulting in no applications being rejected that progressed to the panel.

Where applications were not progressed, IFPs reported that this could be to prevent duplication (where similar activity was already being delivered in an area), because the size, scale or focus of the project did not match community needs or because the organisation was asking for funding for activities that were not in direct response to the pandemic.

8.1.3 Perceptions of the fund

As previously stated, the IFPs felt that, given the need to get money out to people in the community as quickly as possible, the funding process had worked well. Although a lack of specificity in the criteria and few monitoring requirements had made comparisons challenging and the IFPs recognised that the funding process had been imperfect, there was a perception that the light touch approach had been the right one to adopt in an emergency situation. One partner, for example, felt that each stage of the funding process had its benefits:

"Working through known and respected anchor organisations offered confidence, good lines of communication, sharing, negotiating and open clear decision making. Using expressions of interest (simple proposition) which was then subjected to informed partner scrutiny, negotiation and amendment allowed for informed, well-matching funding bids. Respect between different partners allowed for experience to be recognised and respected within a light touch control framework. Siding on the judgement of 'a bit too much' rather than [reductions] through scrutiny' felt like the right approach in an emergency. Excess funds were negotiated to additional local impact which was again a better approach to servicing an emergency than re-call and re-cycling of funds." (Intermediary funding partner)

IFPs also highlighted the reach of the fund in being able to support a wide range of local groups and organisations through CAOs, allowing funding to be distributed quickly by organisations who knew their communities well.

8.1.4 Challenges

IFPs responding to the survey were also asked if they had encountered any challenges or barriers during the delivery of the SCF. All of the partners that responded to the survey identified at least one challenge they encountered during the funding period. IFPs commenting on this theme identified challenges relating to working with CAOs, specificity of the funding criteria, issues of duplication and monitoring requirements, the pace of delivery and a lack of resources.

Given the light touch approach to the funding process, it is perhaps not surprising that many IFPs identified challenges around trying to balance speed, flexibility and risk. Several of the IFPs identified challenges relating to a lack of clarity around the funding criteria in the initial stages of administering the fund which made it difficult to identify who was eligible and which activities could be funded. This lack of clarity was viewed by some IFPs as making the application process more time consuming to administer as a result of repeatedly having to explain to CAOs the eligibility and intention of the fund.

IFPs also expressed the view that the lack of clarity around the funding criteria often made it difficult to help organisations submit consistent applications or to make comparisons against similar projects. One partner noted that the openness and flexibility of the criteria made it harder for some organisations to decide what they wanted to do and what they could apply for.

However, one partner felt that although there had been challenges throughout the funding process, with hindsight they would not have done anything differently. This partner wanted to highlight that they had been requesting a move to a light touch funding process for a long time and that stopping communities 'jumping through hoops' to get the funding they need was the right approach moving forward.

8.1.5 Lessons learned from the funding process

Similarly to the anchor organisations, IFPs involved in the delivery of the SCF were also asked about any key learning they had gained through their experience of delivering the fund. Learning identified by IFPs was in many ways closely related to the challenges they had encountered during the funding period, including lessons on clarity of criteria, effective communications and the funding process. As well as highlighting the importance of strong partnerships, CAOs, community-led initiatives and trust.

8.2 Perspectives from the community anchor organisations

Although lessons learned relating to the funding process are discussed in more detail elsewhere, 13% of organisations responding to the question on learning in the follow-up survey also identified learning on this topic. Organisations commenting on this theme highlighted that a small amount of funding and direct investment in communities can achieve a huge impact.

Two organisations identified learning around the length of the funding period, specifically that they would have preferred more time to develop their ideas and that the lead-in time to a funding period should be taken into account in trying to set up future projects. One noted that without the time to develop their ideas properly there was a risk of duplication.

Another organisation highlighted that it was difficult to decide which organisations to provide funding to in such a short amount of time and their approach might have been different if the funding period had been longer:

"I think the process went relatively well from our point of view. It was difficult to decide which organisations we wanted to receive money and, with more time, I would have looked for more collaborative ways of responding, and/or providing funds to a wider range of organisations." (Community anchor organisation, Edinburgh City)

Two organisations noted that although they recognised the need for funding exercises to have criteria, they felt that their positive experience of the SCF confirmed that there needs to be some flexibility to reach the right beneficiaries at the right time. One of these organisations noted that the 'needs must' approach of the SCF funding process had the effect of greater trust being placed in organisations:

"How important having a functioning, capable anchor organisation (in this case, us) in the community was to being able to respond effectively at speed. We saw firsthand (and supported) other communities who did not have the same capacity and saw how time was lost. Also how much easier it is to operate flexibly and at speed when unnecessary, cumbersome and restrictive administration is removed or minimized with regards to funding. I fully appreciate the requirement for effective due-process, evaluation, monitoring and assessment of value for money but there seemed to be a "needs must" minimization of this which felt much more trusting (I think aided by being supported by [intermediary funding partner]). Perhaps there is a more balanced approach to be carried forward from this." (Community anchor organisation, West Lothian)

8.3 IFP perspectives on partnership working

All the IFPs that chose to comment on their experience of partnership working to deliver the fund were generally positive. IFPs felt that working in partnership with both Scottish Government and CAOs had allowed them to deliver a fast-paced, coordinated and joined-up response to the Covid-19 pandemic which they would not have been able to do otherwise. In working in partnership with other IFPs and organisations, IFPs were able to share knowledge, expertise and their experiences of supporting the third sector. This exchange of knowledge enabled the quick and agile roll out of the funding programme, ensuring support reached those most in need in communities.

Echoing much of the learning identified by the anchor organisations, IFPs also highlighted the importance of CAOs and community-led initiatives, referring to the unique positioning of third sector organisations within communities. Namely, that the SCF funding process highlighted the capabilities of the third sector and communities to respond to a major crisis. For this reason, IFPs felt that these organisations should be supported to continue their work in the community, given that they are well placed to have an awareness of and respond to community need. Generally the IFPs felt that the light touch approach of the fund had worked well but the role of the anchor organisations and the trust vested in them had played a key role in ensuring this approach had been a success.

In addition to partnership working playing a key role in the delivery of the fund, IFPs also identified specific outcomes arising from the relationships they built with other IFPs, Scottish Government and CAOs. Outcomes identified by IFPs included the creation of respectful and trusted relationships; enhanced relationships with existing IFPs; increased interaction with local authorities; and increased visibility with their local communities. One partner for example, noted that taking on the role of a lead partner in the SCF had enhanced their reputational value.

Challenges around partnership working were identified by one IFP who highlighted that Scottish Government had some technical problems in the initial stages of the fund when new ways to virtually meet and share documents had to be found. This partner also noted a level of 'soft-critiquing' among those involved in the oversight panel, where IFPs were more reluctant to challenge the proposals of others if they did not have the knowledge or expertise in that area.