LGC/S5/20/16/A

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND COMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

AGENDA

16th Meeting, 2020 (Session 5)

Friday 26 June 2020 The Committee will meet at 10.00 am in a virtual meeting and be broadcast on www.scottishparliament.tv 1. Decision on taking business in private: The Committee will decide whether

to take items 3 and 4 in private. 2. The Third Sector and COVID-19: The Committee will take evidence from—

Anna Fowlie, Chief Executive, Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations; Josiah Lockhart, Chief Executive, Firstport;

and then from—

Lesley Kelly, Chief Officer, Midlothian Third Sector Interface; Maddy Halliday, Chief Executive, Voluntary Action North Lanarkshire; Hector Macleod, Chair, Western Isles Third Sector Interface.

3. The Third Sector and COVID-19: The Committee will consider the evidence heard at today's meeting.

4. Work programme: The Committee will consider its work programme.

Peter McGrath Clerk to the Local Government and Communities Committee

Room T3.40 The Scottish Parliament

Edinburgh Tel: 0131 348 5232

Email: peter.mcgrath@parliament.scot

LGC/S5/20/16/A

The papers for this meeting are as follows— Agenda Item 2

Note by the Clerk

LGC/S5/20/16/1

PRIVATE PAPER

LGC/S5/20/16/2 (P)

Agenda Item 4

PRIVATE PAPER

LGC/S5/20/16/3 (P)

LGC/S5/20/16/1

1

Local Government and Communities Committee

16th Meeting (Session 5), Friday 26 June 2020

The Third Sector and Covid-19: Note by the Clerk

Introduction

1. The purpose of this paper is to provide an introductory briefing on the Committee’s evidence session with the Third Sector. This session will focus on how Third Sector organisations in Scotland have been affected by the pandemic and what additional support the Scottish Government is providing. The Committee is keen to hear more about funding and in particular the Scottish Government’s Third Sector Resilience Fund (TSRF)1 which was set up to help organisations facing financial difficulties as a direct consequence of Covid-19. The session will focus mainly on:

• Challenges faced generally by the Third Sector as a result of the pandemic, how these are being addressed and what additional support organisations are receiving;

• The Third Sector Resilience Fund, its application process, eligibility and whether the process ensures equitable access for all organisations.

2. The Committee is currently holding its meetings remotely whilst social distancing measures remain in place. It will therefore take evidence by video-conference from two panels of witnesses:

Panel 1

• Anne Fowlie, Chief Executive, Scottish Council of Voluntary Organisations (SCVO);

• Josiah Lockhart, Chief Executive, Firstport. Panel 2

• Lesley Kelly, Chief Officer, Midlothian Third Sector Interface

• Maddy Halliday, Chief Executive, Voluntary Action North Lanarkshire

• Hector Macleod, Chair, Western Isles Third Sector Interface

3. This is a one-off evidence session which may lead to the Committee undertaking

further work in this area in the future. The session builds on the Committee’s

ongoing work on the response by the Scottish Government to the Covid-19 public

health emergency on areas within its remit.

1 The Third Sector Resilience Fund is a £20m emergency fund for charities, community groups, social enterprises and voluntary organisations working in Scotland. The fund supports organisations that already deliver services and products but find themselves in financial difficulties directly as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, The primary intention of the fund is to help third sector organisations to stabilise and manage cash flows.

LGC/S5/20/16/1

2

Background

4. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (SCVO) is the national membership organisation for the voluntary sector. It has over 2000 members. The delivery of the TSRF is managed by three fund administrators commissioned by the Scottish Government on its behalf - Firstport, Social Investment Scotland and Corra Foundation. On 30 April 2020, the Committee wrote to the SCVO and to fund administrators to ask for further information about the TSRF.

5. The Committee also wrote to Scotland’s network of Third Sector Interfaces (TSIs)2 to seek views of the charities that they support of their experiences in applying for the TSRF and whether it is reaching all those organisations needing support. It was also interested in finding out whether there has been an increase in demand for the services of the third sector over recent months.

6. The Committee received 18 submissions from TSIs across Scotland which can

be accessed here. They received a joint submission from SCVO, Firstport, Social Investment Scotland and Corra Foundation. The Scottish Parliament’s Information Centre (SPICe) prepared a summary of all responses which can be accessed here.

7. Issues that the Committee might wish to explore during this session may include:

• What impact Covid 19 has had on local communities and the organisations that support them and which services have seen the biggest growth in demand;

• How funding for the TSRF is assessed and awards determined;

• The number of organisations applying for and receiving grants and their experiences of doing so;

• Whether any breakdown is available of approval and rejection data and whether the application process seems to favour or disadvantage any particular type of organisation;

• What other funding is available and what the Scottish Government can do to protect and maintain the financial sustainability of the third sector following the crisis;

8. Written submissions

• Joint submission from SCVO, Social Investment Scotland, Firstport and Corra Foundation (Annexe A)

• Midlothian Third Sector Interface (Annexe B)

• Voluntary Action North Lanarkshire (Annexe C)

• Western Isles Third Sector Interface (Annexe D)

2Third Sector Interfaces (TSIs) provide a single point of access for support and advice for the third sector within local areas. There is a TSI in each local authority area in Scotland. Further information on the work of TSIs can be found at https://www.gov.scot/policies/third-sector/third-sector-interfaces/

LGC/S5/20/16/1

3

Next steps

9. The Committee will discuss the evidence it has heard immediately following the

evidence session and may decide to undertake further work in this area.

Local Government and Communities Committee

COVID-19

Joint submission from Firstport, Corra Foundation, Social Investment Scotland, and SCVO

We want to thank you for inviting us to share detailed information about the Third Sector Resilience Fund (TSRF) as well as our views on the fund to date.

We hope to take this opportunity to outline the design process for the fund followed by the journey a third sector organisation goes through when applying. We will then reflect on the performance on the fund to date, share some insights about the make-up of the organisations that have applied and been supported through the fund, and our views on the future of the fund.

About the Fund

The Third Sector Resilience Fund opened for applications on Wednesday 25th March 2020, after the Scottish Government commissioned Firstport, Social Investment Scotland and Corra Foundation to manage the fund on its behalf, and was one of the first COVID-19 response initiatives to open for applications in the whole of the UK.

The fund was allocated £20m to be distributed as grants from the £350m package of support for the Third Sector announced by the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Local Government on 19th March. In addition, £5m were made available to be distributed as loan finance. The £5m were already held by Social Investment Scotland on behalf of the Scottish Government.

Working closely with SCVO and the Third Sector COVID-19 Hub, the fund was opened for applications eight days after commissioning and made its first awards within the first few days of opening. The skill sets and experience of the partners ensures that assessors across the fund have a track record of working with each sub-segment of the third sector, and daily partner meetings ensures collaboration and agile decision making. The close relationship between the communications teams of Firstport and SCVO ensures that feedback to the COVID-19 hub is responded to and FAQ’s are updated regularly.

It has been recognised by third sector leaders across the UK that Scotland has been significantly faster than other countries in getting support operationalised and resources out the door.

Organisations supported by the fund vary in size, sector and geography. From the 1st Thurso Boys Brigade (£828.00 grant award) in Caithness, to Horsecross Arts in Perth (£99,999.00 grant award) and Foxlake CIC in East Lothian (£80,000 loan), the fund has been able to cater to the needs of small and large organisations.

1

Annex A

Eligibility Criteria

From its inception, the Third Sector Resilience Fund has had as a remit to support those organisations most at risk of closure due to a sharp decrease in income or because they were unable to deliver the services due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Unlike other Scottish Government emergency funds focused on supporting front line organisations responding to the pandemic, the TSRF is specifically targeted at charities, voluntary organisations, social enterprises and other third sector organisations in Scotland that find themselves in financial difficulties directly as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic (but that would otherwise be in a positive financial position). The funding’s primary intention is to help these organisations to stabilise and manage cash flow during this difficult period.

Working with the Scottish Government, drawing on the partners’ collective knowledge of the third sector and a limited consultation with third sector support organisations and intermediaries, it was agreed that interested applicants would be:

• a charity, voluntary organisation or social enterprise based in Scotland and/orprimarily delivering services/activities in Scottish communities

• Already in operation and services before March 2020• Needing funding directly as a result of the impact of COVID-19 and Scotland’s

national precautionary measures• In need of funding to help their short-term cash flow position• Able to clearly articulate their costs and their funding requirements over a four

month period (subsequently reduced to three months in Phase 2 of the fund)

Throughout Phase 1 of the fund, a weekly update was produced for and distributed to support organisations across Scotland, with a regular call for feedback. At the end of April the Scottish Government committed additional resources to the fund helping it transition into a Phase 2, with slightly evolved parameters that took into consideration both feedback from the sector and intermediary bodies as well as data acquired from applications to date.

Application process and time to award

From the start, the three partner organisations agreed that, to be truly effective during the emergency, we needed to work towards short turn-around times, ensuring that vital funds reached the bank accounts of the organisations in most need as quickly as possible.

To this end, the application process was designed to be simple, able to make quick assessments and decisions and work towards a 10 working day turnaround time as a maximum. To date all applications have received a response and payment within 10 working days except in a small handful of cases where extra information was needed from applicants before an award could be made.

Some of the steps taken towards this goal included:

2

Annex A

• Design an eligibility checker before applications were accessed. The intentionwas to ensure that interested organisations confirmed they met the eligibilitycriteria before applying, so if they weren’t (or didn’t have the necessaryinformation to make the application), valuable time wasn’t wasted writing anapplication that was likely to be declined.

• Applicants selected the most relevant application form based on their fundingneed

• In the case of grant applications, bank details were asked as part of theapplication process, so payments could be made shortly after decisions.

• Awards decision panels 4 days each week, with faster payments made with24 hours of each panel.

This process has proved effective. In fact, the first payments were made on 3rd April, seven working days after the fund first opened for applications.

Striving for simplicity and speed, accountability for spending of the funds is primarily weighted to evidence of financial need prior to applying. At a date to be determined, Firstport, Social Investment Scotland and Corra Foundation will be in touch with their respective awardees to request brief updates on how the organisation is doing. Confirmation will be sought that the organisation is still in operation along with specific details such as number of staff in employment or monthly income levels.

Information about applications and awards

Grant applications

As of 1st May 2020 there were 2390 applications made to the Third Sector Resilience Fund requesting £70,073,573.

1955 of those applications had been processed, with 782 Organisations having been awarded a total of £16,674,787* with an overall success rate of 40%.

More information about size of awards and splits by value can be found in Appendix A.

Loans applications

The fund has received 37 applications for loans valued at £4,678,500.

15 loans were approved for a total value of £1,422,000. 19 applications were declined and re-assessed for a grant (these will appear in the grant figures in Appendix A), and a further 3 were declined outright.

Of the 15 loans, 5 were loan only with a total value of £481,000. A further 10* were blended with a grant with a total value of loan portion being £941,000.

*discrepancy in blended is due to the loan portion of one blended applicant wasapproved whist the grant portion was approved on the 4th May.

3

Annex A

More information about size of loans and splits by value can be found in Appendix B.

Information about unsuccessful applications

Below we outline the three main reasons why organisations have been unable to secure a grant or loan from the Third Sector Resilience Fund:

Their funding needs were not suited to TSRF

The Third Sector Resilience fund is one of a package of COVID-19 related funds established by the Scottish Government. Because this fund was launched ahead of the other funds, a high number of organisations were asking for costs better suited to either the Wellbeing, Food, or Supporting Communities Funds.

As such, organisations that were either creating a new service or changing their services to respond to COVID-19 were unsuccessful and referred to one of the other funds. With the subsequent opening of other Scottish and UK Government COVID-19 programmes, the volume of unsuccessful applications for this reason have decreased substantially.

Not in immediate need

The Third Sector Resilience Fund was set up to support those at highest risk of closure due to cash flow issues.

For grant awards the parameters for Phase 1 of the fund defined this as less than 4 months of unrestricted cash reserves. Guidance for Phase 2 has reduced that to less than 12 weeks. In this instance, organisations were unsuccessful based upon how long they believed they could sustain their organisation.

For loan applications stronger levels of financial reserves are often an indication of the organisation’s ability to service a loan, and therefore favourable. Each loan application was assessed based on urgency of need and serviceability, with parameters through Phase 1 and Phase 2 allowing loan awards to organisations with up to 4 months reserves.

Not enough detail/Incomplete application

Whist not unique to the Third Sector Resilience Fund, a high number of applications made were either incomplete or with not enough information about the organisation’s plans to allow us make a decision. This was very prominent in the early weeks of the fund and we believe stemmed from organisational uncertainty and confusion surrounding other initiatives (e.g. job retention scheme) whose guidance were released after the launch of TSRF.

In Phase 2 of the fund, the majority of these applications are now referred to Just Enterprise, the Scottish Government’s programme of business support for the enterprising third sector, to work on their resilience plans and re-apply to the fund where appropriate.

4

Annex A

Organisations who find it hard to access the fund

As you will see in Appendix A, organisations of all sizes, geographies, and sectors have been able to access the fund. The strong application and award levels from organisations with less than £50k income demonstrates the fund’s accessibility to small groups. There is, however, one type of organisation that has been less well served by the fund’s parameters and has had a significantly lower success rate than others. These organisations are those with over £1m turnover, needing more than £100k of resilience funding but not able to service a loan. Whist small in number, there is a worry that the maximum grant of resilience funding will not be sufficient to see them through the current crisis.

Levels of Demand and the Future of the Fund

The first five weeks of the TSRF saw a higher than expected demand for the fund, but with the opening of other Scottish and UK Government COVID-19 support schemes, applications to the fund have slowed accordingly.

Following regular analysis of the applications, the view of the TSRF delivery partners is that there will be a need for continued funding for the third sector into the second half of the year. However, the focus of such funding needs to move beyond resilience to include recovery and new service design and delivery.

In addition, organisations who were not at immediate risk when the fund opened may be at risk later in the year. This may be particularly the case for enterprising third sector organisations and social enterprises which rely on trading income rather than grant funding. These organisations have seen their income decrease substantially but because in many cases they have built strong reserves, they have been unable to access the TSRF. The feedback the partners have received indicates that these organisations feel penalised for being more sustainable and we expect that if the lockdown measures continue until the summer, they will be in financial difficulties later in the year.

Many funders and third sector organisations are gathering intelligence and carrying out reviews to help inform them about the levels of need and support in this rapidly changing landscape. The Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator has also launched a survey to all 24,000 Scottish Register Charities on the impact of coronavirus. The more information we gather and share across organisations, the easier it will be to draw conclusions during this critical time for learning. SCVO is working with the Scottish Government, independent funders and the sector to support this and will welcome continued engagement with the Scottish Parliament as evidence emerges.

The third sector is a vital infrastructure that needs careful nurturing at all times. However, charities, community groups, social enterprises and voluntary organisations often work in precarious funding environments. While this has been exacerbated further by the coronavirus pandemic, last year’s recommendations from the Equality and Human Rights Committee’s inquiry on ‘Valuing the Third Sector’

5

Annex A

provided welcome recognition from cross-party MSPs that a more collaborative and sustainable approach to funding the sector is needed.

The evidence from this report - informed by a wide range of third sector bodies, Audit Scotland and OSCR – and the learning from the response to the coronavirus pandemic, must come together to inform future decision making on matters relating to third sector funding.

Thank you once again for the opportunity to share detailed information with the committee on the Third Sector Resilience Fund to date. We hope you have found it useful for your discussion.

Sincerely Yours, Josiah Lockhart – CEO at Firstport for Social Entrepreneurs Scotland Carolyn Sawyers – Deputy CEO at Corra Foundation Alastair Davis - CEO at Social Investment Scotland Anna Fowlie – CEO at Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations Appendix A – Grant Applications (as of 1/5/2020)

Total Applications and Awards

As of 1/5 there we’re 2390 applications requesting £70,073,573. 1955 of those applications had been processed, with 782 Organisations having been awarded a total of £16,674,787* with an overall success rate of 40%.

Because of the desire to award where possible, applicants have been awarded reduced grants where possible as an alternative to rejection. Of awarded applications, this reduced the total from £22,295,508 to £16,674,787

Average Award Size of Award

Average award across the fund is £21,323.

Average award for asks of <£25k - £7,333.16 Average award for asks of £25k-£50k - £31,496 Average award for asks of >£50k - £61,200

Total Awards by Size of Applications

Tier 1 (requests <£25k) – 523 organisations totalling £3,835,244 Tier 2 (requests £25-£50k) – 102 organisations totalling £3,212,650 Tier 3 (requests >£50k) – 148 organisation totalling £9,057,940 Blended (grant portion of mixed loan/grant awards) – 9 awards totalling £568,952

Total Awards by size of organisation:

59 to organisations with an income of over £1mil 59 to organisations with an income of £500k - £1mil 306 to organisations with an income of £100k - £500k 122 to organisations with an income of £50k to £100k

6

Annex A

236 to organisations with an income of less than 50k

Total Rejections by size of organisation

113 organisations with an income of over £1mil 85 organisations with an income of £500k - £1mil 409 organisations with an income of £100k - £500k 154 organisations with an income of £50k to £100k 376 organisations with an income of less than 50k

Appendix B – Loan Applications (as of 1/5/2020)

Loans by size of organisation – loans only

3 awards to organisations with an income of over £1mil 1 awards to organisations with an income of £500k - £1mil 1 awards to organisations with an income of £100k - £500k 0 awards to organisations with an income of £50k to £100k 0 awards to organisations with an income of less than 50k

Loans by sector

1 awards to Creative Industries – also selected Business Services 1 awards to Health & Social Care 1 awards to Sport and Physical Activity – also selected Tourism and Hospitality 1 awards to Tourism & Hospitality 1 awardee selected Creative/ Employability/ Energy & Business Services

Rejections by sector

1 Energy 1 Other (animal welfare) 1 Health and Social Care

Loans by location

East Lothian - 1 Scottish Borders - 1 Glasgow - 2 Midlothian – 1

Rejections by Location

Scotland-wide - 2

7

Annex A

Edinburgh – 1

Appendix C: Breakdown of applications by sector and beneficiary location

Awards by Sub-sector

31 to Creative Industries 80 to Circular Economy 31 to employability & community learning 2 to Energy/Renewables 21 to Business Services 18 to Food & Drink 181 to Health & Social Care 4 to Life Sciences 17 to Retail 117 to Sport and Physical Activity 43 to Tourism & Hospitality 246 to Other (primarily “community services”)

Rejections by Sub-sector

23 to Creative Industries 106 to Circular Economy 59 to employability & community learning 5 to Energy/Renewables 33 to Business Services 30 to Food & Drink 344 to Health & Social Care 5 to Life Sciences 17 to Retail 142 to Sport and Physical Activity 33 to Tourism & Hospitality 316 to Other (primarily “community services”)

Awards by location of organisation’s beneficiaries*

Aberdeen City - 17 Aberdeenshire – 29 Angus – 11 Argyll & Bute – 33 Clackmannanshire – 6 Western Isles – 10 Dumfries & Galloway – 26 Dundee City – 20 East Ayrshire – 12 East Dunbartonshire - 4 East Lothian – 11

East Renfrewshire – 6 Edinburgh – 54 Falkirk – 8 Fife – 36 Glasgow – 108 Highland – 44 Inverclyde – 4 Midlothian – 13 Moray – 14 North Ayrshire – 18 North Lanarkshire – 21

8

Annex A

Orkney – 4 Perth & Kinross – 19 Renfrewshire – 16 Scotland Wide – 116 Scottish Borders – 18 Shetland – 11

South Ayrshire – 6 South Lanarkshire – 21 Stirling – 16 West Dunbartonshire – 8 West Lothian – 17

*34 organisations did not enter a value

Rejections by location of organisation’s beneficiaries

Aberdeen City - 22 Aberdeenshire – 38 Angus – 15 Argyll & Bute – 36 Clackmannanshire – 10 Western Isles – 11 Dumfries & Galloway – 39 Dundee City – 27 East Ayrshire – 21 East Dunbartonshire - 7 East Lothian – 23 East Renfrewshire – 6 Edinburgh – 91 Falkirk – 19 Fife – 45 Glasgow – 129 Highland – 63

Inverclyde – 3 Midlothian – 21 Moray – 18 North Ayrshire – 13 North Lanarkshire – 33 Orkney – 5 Perth & Kinross – 30 Renfrewshire – 15 Scotland Wide – 244 Scottish Borders – 28 Shetland – 7 South Ayrshire – 14 South Lanarkshire – 27 Stirling – 28 West Dunbartonshire – 10 West Lothian – 23

9

Annex A

Local Government and Communities Committee

Third Sector Resilience Fund

Midlothian Third Sector Interface Response

Thank you for your letter of 30 April on behalf of the Local Government and Communities Committee. Here are the opinions of the Midlothian Third Sector Interface, based on our experience over the past few weeks.

• Are third sector organisations sufficiently aware of the Scottish Governmentsupport available and the eligibility criteria?

Yes, they are aware and have been able to access support.

• In your opinion do the application process and eligibility criteria favour ordisadvantage any particular type of organisation?

Organisations who have been financially prudent enough to build reserveshave been penalised. This is problematic, because often these reserves areringfenced for specific purposes, will be required to support a re-start ofoperations after the pandemic, or will be sadly needed to cover staffredundancy payments.

Many organisations fear that they would never be able to repay an emergencyloan.

• Can you provide examples of where local organisations have had their TSRFapplication rejected and reasons given?

Two childcare organisations, who are being funded by Midlothian Council toprovide care for the staff of key workers applied and were rejected, as it wasfelt that the council should be meeting their costs. However, they have otheroperating costs (buildings, overheads) that the council is not meeting. Anotherorganisation was rejected because they had moved their service deliveryonline.

• Is the Fund sufficient? If not, what is required from the Scottish Government?

Income-generation capacity will be greatly reduced over a long period of time,and this will impact particular types of organisations more than others. Thosethat require people to physically meet in close proximity (early years childcare,some sports/physical activities, for example), will struggle to provide servicesto enough people to cover costs. Likewise, the community-run assets(halls/hubs) that rely on these activities. We need to look at long-term subsidyfor essential services that simply will not be able to be self-sufficient for theforeseeable future. Our organisations anticipate that when they return to faceto face work the social distancing regime will significantly increase their costs,with higher staff costs due to potentially lower numbers of clients being able tobe supported per staff member, increased cleaning costs, increased venuecosts due to needing more space, PPE costs, potential capital costs (e.g.installing hot water taps, screens). We hope that further SG funding will be

1

Annex B

available to aid the transition back to ‘normal.’ It is also important that we capture the service user experience of lockdown to ensure that we are providing the services they need, and that this information is shared.

• Has there been an increase in demand for the services of third sectororganisations over recent months and if so, what services are more indemand?

Mental health services are in high demand, and we anticipate that this willcontinue to increase.

Support services for highly vulnerable individuals who are particularlyadversely impacted by lockdown and social distancing—for example, at riskchildren and young people, people living in poverty or those who face losingincome, people experiencing domestic abuse, and isolated older people.

We feel that certain groups are at risk of being neglected at this time, forexample, adults who are disabled who are shielding, or unable to use publictransportation, who may become increasingly isolated.

Childcare is going to be a particularly in-demand service, particularly whenmore parents have to return to work. Many older relatives will not be able toprovide informal childcare, and childcare settings will not be able to take asmany children as they normally do. There are also questions about how toprovide care for children during school hours, if they cannot be physically inschool all week.

• Can you provide examples of successful collaborations between third sectororganisations and other groups?

In Midlothian, development trusts, community councils, a football club, andother local organisations are working closely together in the resiliencepartnerships alongside the local authority and Health and Social Carepartnership, to ensure that people who need access to food parcels, cookedmeals and medications are able to access these.

Three third sector after school clubs, a not-for profit dance company and thecouncil have been working together to provide childcare for the families of keyworkers.

We have worked very closely with Midlothian Council and Midlothian Healthand Social Care Partnership to provide guidance packs on communityresilience volunteering, distance volunteering, and scenario planning. We areworking with Midlothian Council who have seconded four members of staff tobe Volunteer Coordinators and will each manage a team of volunteertelephone supporters who will make regular contact with people who areshielding or socially isolating. These volunteers will come from the peoplewho indicated an interest in volunteering through the Scotland Carescampaign on the Ready Scotland website.

2

Annex B

Local Government and Communities Committee Third Sector Interface

Submission from Voluntary Action North Lanarkshire (VANL)

Voluntary Action North Lanarkshire (VANL) supports the whole community and voluntary sector in North Lanarkshire, with an estimated 1,800 groups ranging from small local community groups to charities of all sizes and social enterprises. VANL also supports volunteering in North Lanarkshire, with many thousands of active volunteers at any one time.

During the COVID 19 pandemic about 80 community and voluntary groups are most active in providing crisis support. This includes 38 new C19 community groups. Some community and voluntary groups are continuing to provide their services remotely but many others have had to suspend services during lockdown. The lockdown is having a major impact on income for organisations that rely on public fundraising and trading income.

To help answer the Committee’s questions as below, VANL issued an online survey to our community and voluntary sector and received 49 responses by the closing date on 14th May.

These responses - and VANL’s experience of working with the community and voluntary sector in North Lanarkshire since mid-March 2020 on their COVID 19 crisis response - inform our answers to your questions as provided below.

1. Are third sector organisations sufficiently aware of the ScottishGovernment support available and the eligibility criteria?

The majority are aware. VANL actively promotes information about SGfunding for the community and voluntary sector. Of the 49 respondents to oursurvey above, 70% said they were aware.

2. In your opinion do the application process and eligibility criteria favouror disadvantage any particular type of organisation?

Based on survey responses from North Lanarkshire…..

The fund seems to preference:

• larger charities and those with staff

• those that have not had to change their operating model due to C19

.

The fund seems to disadvantage organisations:

• with prudent reserves policy

• faith organisations providing community support

1

Annex C

• sports groups

3. Can you provide examples of where local organisations have had theirTSRF application rejected and reasons given?

Out of the 49 respondents to VANL’s survey, 15 had applied to the ResilienceFund with 40% rejected. Reasons given included:

• Did not meet criteria

• Reserves

4. Is the Fund sufficient? If not, what is required from the ScottishGovernment?

The fund is insufficient by a very long way when the scale and scope of theScottish community and voluntary sector is considered and the risk to theirincome due to C19.

The Scottish Govt. should recognise the essential role of the community andvoluntary sector by establishing an ongoing fund proportionate to the size ofthe sector, its challenges and its contribution during crisis, transition andrecovery. The fund should provide balanced support for local and nationalorganisations. Support for the local community and voluntary sector should befacilitated by Third Sector Interfaces which can take a portfolio and strategicapproach for their area as a whole.

5. Has there been an increase in demand for the services of third sectororganisations over recent months and if so, what services are more indemand?

There has been a significant increase in demand for:

• community food support, including free food parcels and shopping anddelivery of food where the food is paid for by the supported person

• remote befriending support

6. Can you provide examples of successful collaborations between thirdsector organisations and other groups?

Collaboration in NL during C19 includes very positive experiences ofcommunity and voluntary organisations working:

• With other voluntary groups in their locality. e.g. Health and WellnessHub and Carers Together in the Motherwell area to support localpeople

2

Annex C

• With VANL to manage referrals from the NLC C19 helpline for peoplerequiring support from community and voluntary groups

• With businesses who are donating food to food banks

VANL is also working closely with North Lanarkshire Council (NLC) and NHS Lanarkshire (NHSL) to support the community and voluntary sector COVID 19 response.

NLC and NHSL have redeployed 13 of their staff to support VANL staff in managing referrals from NLC C19 Helpline for community and voluntary sector support.

3

Annex C

Local Government and Communities Committee

Third Sector Interface

Submission from Western Isles

The Third Sector Interface, Western Isles (TSI-WI) welcomes the Scottish Parliament Local Government & Communities Committee’s invitation to respond directly to them on a series of questions the answers to which will hopefully assist in scrutinising the Governments response to the Covid-19 emergency. The TSI-WI’s response to these questions is detailed below.

Are third sector organisations sufficiently aware of the Scottish Government support available and the eligibility criteria?

1.0 The announcement by the Communities Secretary Aileen Campbell outlining various

funding packages totalling £350M for supporting communities to the Scottish

Parliament on 18 March was welcomed by the Sector.

2.0 The TSI-WI’s Partner organisations have staff who live and work in each Island

location throughout the Western Isles. As a consequence, the TSI has a wide local

knowledge of the sector and are well equipped to ensure timely advice on the

availability of the various funds and provide support to access these.

3.0 As the detail on the administration of funding support has become available, the TSI

and other local public and voluntary sector agencies have continued to widely

publicise details of the funding support available to the voluntary sector in order to

minimise the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

4.0 The TSI has systematically engaged with Third Sector organisations and community

leaders to provide up to date and accurate information. This has been achieved

through telephone calls, email, social media platforms, meeting platforms such as

zoom, newsletters and websites. The https://tsiwi.org/ website also provides a

COVID19 page for groups to access information on available funding.

5.0 It is our belief that local third sector agencies and Groups are well aware of the various

funding streams available to them. That said, the various criteria and processes

whilst relatively straight forward from our perspective, has meant that many Groups

have had to quickly learn how to navigate the various processes, assess eligibility

criteria and so on. This has put some people off applying for funding.

In your opinion do the application process and eligibility criteria favour or disadvantage any particular type of organisation?

6.0 We are providing advice and support as requested on all voluntary sector funding but

in particular, we are focusing on the following: -

1

Annex D

5.1 £70M Food Fund which is being used for public sector responses in the main but

which is also be made available for third sector and community responses.

Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (CnES i.e. the Local Authority) has put in place a co-

ordinated response using their Food Fund allocation. The TSI-WI is working with

the local authority and others to ensure that food responses as appropriate to

each Island location. SCVO is also administering part of the funding through the

same application process as the Wellbeing Fund.

5.2 £50M Wellbeing Fund – It was first proposed that Scotland’s Third Sector

Interfaces (TSIs) would manage this Fund to enable national and local action by

third sector organisations to reach the most vulnerable groups quickly. SCVO

made a public announcement to this effect through their website. We are not

aware of the reasons why it was then decided that there would be three phases

at the National level dealing with the distribution of these funds.

Phase 1 – the Corra Foundation, Inspiring Scotland, STV Appeal (not Hunter) and the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (SCVO) directly contacted more than 900 charities across Scotland and invited initial expressions of interest in the offer of an immediate small grant of £2,000. Seven/Eight Groups on the Western Isles were invited to apply for this funding – a potential of £ 14k – 16K through this initial phase.

Phase 2 – this initially involved a national coalition comprising the CORA Foundation; Inspire Scotland, and the STV Appeal (not Hunter). Every TSI was asked to nominate some 20 local groups that might benefit from an immediate small grant of £2,000 on the basis that these organisations would be made aware of the TSI’s nomination and that funds would be paid directly to the organisations wishing to take up the grant. We can confirm that we sent the names and contact details of 20 or so organisations nominated for payment of this small grant to the CORA Foundation on 10th April. Later, clarification was provided that organisations could only receive one award either through the first or second phase of the fund but that no organisation would be disadvantaged in applying for funding through the third phase. The Western Isles received £40K through this second phase.

Phase 3 – this is being administered by the SCVO on behalf of the Scottish Government through an open application process. As stated above, organisations receiving an award through the first or second phase of the Fund, are not prevented from applying at the third stage. As the Committee will be aware, this funding stage is intended to be allocated quickly to help support the purchase and delivery of food, activities to support people’s mental health and wellbeing, co-ordination of local activity and staff and volunteer expenses.

The third phase of funding has involved two stages – the first opened on 13th April and closed on 30th April. There were 15 expressions of interest in this round from organisations across the Western Isles and 12 of these went forward and made a funding application. The Western Isles has received £178K as of 14 May through this first round. The TSI is contacting these

2

Annex D

organisations that did not go forward with an application to offer advice and support if required. A second round opened for applications on 8th May 2020 with applications to be submitted by noon on 22nd May 2020.

5.3 Community Wellbeing Fund – Third Sector Interfaces – Capacity Boost –

The TSI received an additional £90,644 based on a submission made to the Third

Sector Funding Unit on ways in which these monies would be used to strengthen

the capacity of the Third Sector Interface and the wider third sector locally to

support at-risk people manage pressures and demands created by Covid-19. The

detail on the amount of the Grant expended by 31 July is to be notified to the

Scottish Government and it should be noted that the TSI may not expend all of

these monies within the timescale.

5.4 To summarise, the Voluntary Sector on the Western Isles has received £308K

through the Wellbeing Fund as of 14 March 2020.

5.5 £40M Supporting Communities Fund – this Fund is being administered locally

by Highlands & Islands Enterprise (HIE) on the Western Isles. Although no contact

was made with the TSI-WI in the initial phases, we are now playing an active role

in intelligence-sharing and co-ordination between HIE and ‘Community Anchor’

Organisations. As of 14 May 2020, £278K has been awarded to voluntary sector

organisations across the Western Isles through this funding stream.

5.6 £20M Third Sector Resilience Fund – this is an emergency fund for charities,

community groups, social enterprises and voluntary organisations that already

deliver services and products but find themselves in financial difficulties directly

as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. The Fund is being managed by SCVO,

the primary intention being to help third sector organisations to stabilise and

manage cash flows over this difficult period. We have received no enquiries on

applying for this fund and it is not yet known what take up there has been across

the Western Isles.

5.7 In partnership with the National Emergencies Trust, Foundation Scotland is

delivering the Community Response, Recovery and Resilience Fund. The

RRR Fund is aimed at supporting local charities and grassroots organisations

across Scotland to those (most) affected by the coronavirus outbreak. The

Western Isles has received £6.2K through this fund.

7.0 The TSI is close to people on the Western Isles where many national agencies have

no local presence or knowledge of our immediate needs. As stated above, we have

invaluable insight into the overall needs of our communities as our employees live

and work alongside the communities that they serve. We have built up strong links

over time that enables us to have a deep insight into the preferences and needs of

service users so that we can deliver personalised and responsive advice and

services. We also have experience of administering funding distribution locally. The

TSI provides a link between our communities and local government and other

3

Annex D

statutory agencies through the Outer Hebrides Community Planning Partnership

(OHCPP). We have direct access to local government structures, senior personnel,

and networks. Whilst we may approach things differently on occasion, we believe

that we enjoy a good working relationship with our OHCPP Partners which should

only enhance the way in which we face the challenges presented during this present

pandemic. We work extensively with people and communities to ensure that the

voices of the most excluded within the community are heard - often acting as an

advocate for individuals and groups.

8.0 At a more practical level, organisations that may be financial vehicles for the delivery

of a number of large projects but that do not have any non-ring-fenced monies, may

look rich on the outside, but do not necessarily have readily available funds in order

to respond to the Covid-19 pandemic. Any organisations that have high-value assets

and employees, who have retained equity for covering liabilities, may also not screen

well within eligibility criteria. The application and eligibility criteria for the various funds

appears to favour charities and other organisations that are perhaps larger and

already constituted and who apply for funding regularly. Many small organisations

and Groups (some of which are not constituted) that have specifically sprung up in

response to covid-19 can find the myriad of funding routes challenging. This is where

the local knowledge and support provided by the TSI is, and will be, critical in the

months that follow if covid-19 responsive Groups are to be supported and equipped

with the resources that they need to provide tailored services in response to need in

our most rural and vulnerable communities.

9.0 We fully appreciate that Scottish Government (SG) officials are working across

boundaries with national agencies and local groups all of which may be taking

different approaches. It would have been appreciated if some way of expediting

decision-making could have been worked out before making announcements on the

availability of this funding rather than channelling all of it through the top ‘nationally’.

This may have enabled more take-up of funding in rural areas generally and enabled

a release of monies more quickly on the Western Isles. As regards the Western Isles,

we consider that the decision to wholly centralise decision-making on the totality of

this fund (no matter what reference is made to TSI input at the assessment stages),

was contrary to the spirit of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 in

terms of subsidiarity and may prove contrary to the provisions and spirit of the Islands

(Scotland) Act 2018 in that a key measure in the 2018 Act is to require Scottish

Ministers to develop regulations “about reviews of decisions of relevant authorities

relating to island communities impact assessments” and require those who make or

design new policies, strategies or services to consider how these will impact on

islands (i.e. through an Impact Assessment process).

10.0 We are aware that CnES (and others) has contributed to the design of these

processes but that work may be on hold as staff have been redeployed to work on

matters relating to the pandemic. From the TSI’s perspective, this is a frustration as

key decisions (on this and other matters) are being taken without any apparent regard

for Island proofing. Our insularity is an equality issue and as such island proofing is

4

Annex D

important in ensuring that our island areas are treated fairly and that consideration is

given at all levels to the impact of decisions on our communities. In the absence of

regulations and guidance and given that some Ministers have previously stated that

they would look to island proof where they can, we would welcome advice on any

assessment (including provision for an EQIA) that has been undertaken – however

expedited - in relation to the Government’s strategy in the allocation and

arrangements put in place for the distribution of these funds. In a time of crisis, it is

especially relevant that such assessments are undertaken since the impact of a

wrong decision or approach could be substantial in the longer term on our fragile

Island communities.

11.0 On the back of SG reports on the funding allocated so far, the TSI is encouraging

third sector organisations to advise us of their current situation so that we can

continue to respond to the evolving situation. Partners are often in touch daily

(including weekends) in support of some organisations and we meet weekly as a TSI

Partnership so as to step up efforts at understanding who is applying for funding and

on identifying where the gaps lie and where we might offer support.

Our primary concern is to support our local communities here on the Western Isles.

Consequently, we are committed to working in support of all organisations managing

funds so as to maximise the award of funding needed by organisations across the

Western Isles.

Can you provide examples of where local organisations have had their applications rejected and reasons given?

12.0 There are two aspects to this. Firstly, there are those organisations that are now

focusing on providing a response to Covid-19 and secondly those that are, or that

may struggle to continue to provide other services or deliver projects because of the

impact of Covid-19. Rejections have, for example, been received by the West Harris

Trust, Seallam! and the Harris Marina Project. The reasons were respectively that

there was too much capital income in the Trust’s bank, that the project was not

deemed urgent in comparison to other projects and thirdly that there was too much

money going through the organisation’s bank account. Although financial documents

could be drawn up to explain that there were liabilities on the books and that (in the

case of HDL who manage the Harris Marina) a lot of money had previously moved

through the accounts, it was not working capital and would not stay in the accounts

as usable income. One organisation on Uist was invited to re-apply having had their

original application rejected. Although this was not an entirely negative outcome and

further guidance was made available by e-mail it would be useful if there was a

national telephone helpline for those making applications to funds where the TSI has

not been involved.

13.0 Early on in the process, it was not clear to applicants, despite questions on some

forms requesting details over what other funding had been applied for/awarded, that

whilst organisations could apply to one fund, this did not preclude them from applying

5

Annex D

to another fund as long as the activity that that they were requesting funding for was

different to that which they may have already received funding for from another fund.

It has to be borne in mind that organisations have been used to routinely applying to

many funds in the hope of receiving funding from one or more sources. They have

also been used to receiving support from Funders e.g. the National Lottery. The

nature of some of the funding processes can lead to confusion over the role of the

local TSI and the National funders in determining applications. For instance, Harris

Voluntary Service (HVS) made two applications (and confusingly, received three e-

mails with application invites) on behalf of themselves and one other project. They

were then contacted to confirm which one they wanted to put forward so involving a

judgement call on their part as to which application might stand more chance of

approval. Given the time lags in the different awards, this has further complicated

matters for some applicants.

14.0 Expecting small, local voluntary Groups in particular to navigate a plethora of national

agencies and funders (whether operating as a coalition or not) applying different

criteria and not least engage in form filling means that the potential number of

applications or the impact of these funds locally might be diluted and may result in

more strain on these organisations in the longer term.

15.0 Some of the smaller organisations that may be excluded through the criteria have

however been helped by the TSI and through the existence of ‘anchor organisations’

that can provide tailored encouragement through the Communities Fund in particular.

It is not known why the TSI could not have administered the emergency funding of

£2k made available through CORA (i.e. £2k for each award amounting to some £46k

across the Western Isles) which was, in essence, an immediate need for a relatively

small amount of funding. This would then have freed up time and capacity for

scrutinising and strategically awarding more substantial funding amounts.

Is the Fund sufficient? If not, what is required from the Scottish Government?

16.0 Many voluntary sector organisations are playing a crucial role in ameliorating the

impact of lockdown. For example, local third sector care and befriending

organisations, the local Citizens Advice Bureau, hospices, and so on. But there many

other charities providing crucial services that will not benefit from the government

funding; or if they do, to a limited extent.

17.0 There is a sense that monies need to be spent in a certain timeframe but there is no

sense of whether there will be continued funding through the pandemic and beyond

into economic recovery. Some fund recipients need guidance on whether they should

be "saving" some of the funds for contingency. If funds are not spent, information on

claw-back is scant if at all. It would be helpful if the Scottish Government could give

a projection of how and when funds will be released should the current situation

stretch on after the end of summertime. No one knows if the fund is truly sufficient

and there is some confusion and reticence to spend everything awarded in case there

is no confirmation of what funding may be available in the medium to longer term.

6

Annex D

We need more transparency on the Government’s assessment of need that is

informing current allocations and decision-making: a lot of different funds were

released at once and now there are phases or rounds of funding.

18.0 Against this backdrop are issues of connectivity, our aging demographics and so on.

It is absolutely right that the SG should be endeavouring to support voluntary sector

organisations at this time but the arrangements in place may well have wide reaching

implications for the wider sector on the Western Isles and indeed across Scotland in

the medium to longer term. We very much welcome the efforts being made by the

SG but it is timely that the Committee is undertaking an early review of the

Governments response to the Covid-19 emergency particularly as regards its funding

initiatives to support the voluntary sector.

Has there been an increase in demand for the services of third sector organisations over recent months and if so, what services are more in demand?

19.0 Increased demand for volunteers has ranged from home care to community outreach,

delivery drivers and cover for key workers who were initially self-isolating or

considered vulnerable. Relief postal workers, respite carers, and surgery staff have

been recruited directly from the community due to the quick response needed at the

start of lockdown. Our Partner, the Volunteer Centre Western Isles (VCWI) has set

up additional volunteer projects to support the COVID19 response, such as sewing

scrubs.

20.0 There has been a marked increase in demand for services by voluntary organisations

that provide advice, friendship and contact, transport, food, and volunteering. These

organisations are providing primarily vulnerable people with medicines and shopping

and reducing social isolation by making regular telephone contact. Third sector

organisations are adapting their priorities to meet the new needs and circumstances

of their communities.

21.0 Currently, the Western Isles has more volunteers than are needed and whilst they

may not be needed at this point in time, they may become critical in our collective

efforts to support and rebuild our communities over the weeks and months to come.

22.0 There has been little reported volunteer fatigue and due to the localised areas

assigned to the volunteer sets, and with perhaps the exception of the main population

centres (e.g. Stornoway) almost everyone knows the volunteers that they are

interacting with. The TSI is keen to ensure that Volunteers go through some form of

assessment so that volunteers are not allocated to organisations without appropriate

checks having been made.

23.0 Whilst not related to funding, the Committee may be interested to know that the

TSI received 87 referrals through Volunteer Scotland. Our Volunteer Centre has now

contacted them. We are pleased that Volunteers are now being asked to make

7

Annex D

requests directly to the British Red Cross (BRC) and to Third Sector Interfaces

(TSIs).

24.0 The TSI Partner, the VCWI has also set up a Volunteer and COVID-19 portal on their

own website to support volunteer management throughout the COVID19 response

and to provide national and local support and information. Staff have also been in

direct contact with many of the organisations who are responding with volunteer help,

to offer support and information.

25.0 CnES has established a dedicated 'Volunteering' site and Volunteers are being

encouraged to complete a registration form or call the service so as to collect details

of individuals and community groups throughout the Western Isles. They have

also established a dedicated service to collect details of individuals who are looking

for support during Covid-19. Unfortunately, we have been unable to assist the CnES

in the matching process because of GDPR restrictions (i.e. their on-line form does

not have a checkbox to facilitate data sharing with the TSI-WI). We are however

promoting volunteering alongside CnES. As is usual, there is no one way into

volunteering, and all routes are to be valued and supported.

26.0 Thankfully, the Western Isles has not had a death from Covid-19 as yet. There is a

view that this is lulling many people into a false sense of security. It is estimated that

the Islands may be several weeks behind central Scotland in terms of the virus

spread. There is a concern that if ferry and plane restrictions are relaxed prematurely,

that this will increase the inward transmission of the virus since there is no doubt that

restrictions – along with social distancing - has helped to suppress the virus.

27.0 Work is taking place to introduce "test, trace, isolate, support" (TTIS) arrangements

which will be most effective when levels of infection are low and stay low. Smaller

communities can have many points of contact with the same people which could

mean that proportionately more people may have to self-isolate in any one

community. This could potentially have a huge impact on key service delivery and on

the voluntary sector which may well have to increase its capacity to make sure that

continued volunteering effort is available to agencies and communities so as to

enable people to isolate effectively.

28.0 Easing the lockdown restrictions will require careful balancing of all risks. There is

much dependence on the volunteering effort in small communities and so the

financial, social and wellbeing impacts could be considerable in these communities

in particular. Going forward, the co-ordination and support for all volunteering effort

could well be critical – agency communication with the TSI and close working across

all agencies will be essential to ensure the assessment and safety of volunteers, and

their capacity to provide cover and services as the TTIS regime is rolled out and

particularly if the requirement to self-isolate is more than is currently estimated.

8

Annex D

Can you provide examples of successful collaborations between third sector organisations and other groups?

29.0 The collaboration between the third sector, HIE and the Harris Forum has been

positive in getting funds to the anchor organisation in Harris i.e. HDL (Harris

Development Ltd). The Forum and HDL are pan-Harris wide and include many

organisations in their membership who oversee many of the community projects and

activities across Harris and these groups are working well together. In Uist, Barra

and Lewis the view is that HIE who have a very local presence has been helpful,

supportive, timely and trusting in their approach to the funds released to them for

distribution.

30.0 In Uist, Harris and Barra, the TSI has produced and distributed specific covid-19

information to the community (funded through its local partner organisations). In Uist,

for example, the booklet was produced by the Uist Council of Voluntary Organisations

(UCVO) and was primarily delivered by Community Councils. The booklet carries

details of coronavirus symptoms, advice on self-isolation and vital information on

contacting the NHS. Also featured are local support services being delivered by Third

Sector organisations as well as contact details for Council, Health Board and

Volunteering services. A vast amount of information is currently being ‘put out’ on

social media and over the web. The TSI has been concerned to reach those who

may not have access to the internet and/or who may not be known to the public

agencies. SG funding has helped the TSI and the voluntary sector deliver key

information to those living in very remote and rural locations in particular. There is

sometimes a belief that everyone knows everyone else in small communities but this

is not always the case neither is it reasonable or practical to expect neighbours who

may themselves be vulnerable to visit or telephone people that they do not

themselves know.

31.0 Three Partner organisations (Voluntary Action Barra & Vatersay, Uist Council of

Voluntary Organisations and Volunteering Hebrides) are also working as an ‘Anchor

Organisation’ in partnership with HIE to distribute the Supporting Communities

funding to local organisations and this has worked well. Participating as a member of

the inter-agency ‘Care for People’ resilience group as a representative of the

voluntary sector has been welcomed in ensuring cognisance is taken of voluntary

sector and community perspectives in the activities of this Group. We have also

welcomed the opportunity to share learning and experiences as member of the

Northern & Islands TSI Network and at other local and Scotland wide TSI meetings

in relation to the pandemic. We particularly welcome the appointment of an Islands

Policy and Communities Expert (Coinneach Morrison) from the Directorate for

Agriculture and Rural Economy, Rural Economy and Communities Division – Islands

Team as a point of liaison in relation to the pandemic through the submission of daily

reports. We have immediate access to this person who has been very supportive in

any contacts made.

9

Annex D

In Conclusion

32.0 In late March 2019, the TSI switched the majority of its operations to provide support

to voluntary organisations and communities across the Western Isles in light of the

Covid-19 pandemic. In addition to the above, the TSI has been prioritising its

resources to safeguard the people that we support and our staff and has been

providing information and guidance on sourcing funding, governance, and

volunteering to third sector groups and organisations.

33.0 The TSI welcomes covid-19 advice provided by SCVO & OSCR for voluntary sector

organisations. We also welcome the Scottish Parliament’s Economy, Energy and Fair

Work Committee’s ongoing commitment to gathering views on the impact of COVID-

19 on businesses, workers, and the economy in Scotland. From a TSI perspective,

people who already face multiple disadvantage and inequality across the Western

Isles and who often have less financial and social resilience are and will be most

vulnerable to the economic impact of coronavirus.

34.0 The impact of COVID-19 will not just affect many people’s incomes, however.

Potentially, it will also impact on their longer-term health. The Western Isles already

faces many challenges as a consequence of depopulation, an ageing society, a

smaller workforce to support health and social services, and a smaller number of

unpaid family carers. We also have a number of underlying health and housing issues

including the greatest proportion of lone pensioner households in Scotland.

35.0 The Voluntary sector tends to provide help and support to those who are most dis-

advantaged and in particular the elderly, the socially dis-advantaged and those with

poor health. We recognise that it is too early to draw any definitive conclusions about

the long-term impact of the pandemic on the economy, on our health & social care

services and the voluntary sector across the Western Isles. It is clear however that

as the crisis goes on and as steps are taken to introduce TTIS and relax lockdown

measures, voluntary sector organisations will need help more than ever, and

especially if there is any need for increased social isolation as a consequence of the

spread of the virus creating ever greater need in amongst the most vulnerable in our

communities. Funding for the sector through the various SG Funds is welcomed yet,

at the same time, the TSI and many groups are also concerned that reduced

fundraising activities and income from donations is likely to be more of a risk to the

sector’s long term viability. The TSI hopes that Government assistance for the

voluntary sector will be ongoing to ensure that it can rebuild longer term as the crisis

is abated and specifically in the form of loans, rents and rates relief and increased

grant funding.

36.0 Based on the experience of working with local and national agencies in response to

Covid-19 we anticipate a change in roles and expectations on the TSI which will

become more apparent in the post virus review period and we will make changes to

our business plan in 2020/21 in light of findings. What is clear however is that a

vibrant, resourced and responsive TSI will be a key to enable the TSI to use its local

10

Annex D

knowledge, specialised expertise, local networks and hard-won collaborations that

are fundamental to the wellbeing of our communities, and which will be deeply

needed as we face, and recover from, the social and economic impact of Covid-19.

The TSI remains committed to working across the Sector, and with national and local

agencies to protect our voluntary sector infrastructure assets which are operating in

the heart of our communities.

About Us

37.0 The Third Sector Interface Western Isles is funded by the Scottish Government to

provide a single point of access for support and advice for the third sector throughout

the Western Isles. We are part of the Scottish network of 32 TSIs. Our TSI is an

unincorporated Partnership of six local voluntary sector organisations: -

• Voluntary Action Barra & Vatersay

• Uist Council of Voluntary Organisations

• Harris Voluntary Service

• Volunteering Hebrides

• Outer Hebrides Social Economy Partnership

• Volunteer Centre Western Isles

The Third Sector in the Western Isles

38.0 The Western Isles has a diverse Third Sector which consists of more than 200

community groups, voluntary organisations, charities, trusts and social enterprises.

39.0 We have the highest rate of volunteering in the UK with over 50% of the population

volunteering. These volunteers work in every community across the islands and

support hundreds of people, families, communities and causes every year.

40.0 In addition to receiving an annual grant of £369,600 from Scottish Government to deliver on agreed outcomes, we also receive external funding from other sources including Comhairle nan Eilean Siar and NHS Western Isles to deliver bespoke work. Our services focus on high priority areas identified by communities, third sector organisations and though our work with the Outer Hebrides Community Planning Partnership, the Health & Social Care Integration Joint Board and other public sector agencies.

11

Annex D

1

Local Government and Communities Committee

Third Sector Resilience Fund - summary of submissions

During this incredibly difficult period, the Committee has been keen to understand what additional support the Scottish Government is providing to the third sector. The Committee therefore asked Scotland’s network of Third Sector Interfaces (TSIs) to submit views on the Scottish Government’s Third Sector Resilience Fund (TSRF) and whether it is reaching all those organisations needing support. In particular, the Committee was keen to hear about the application process and eligibility criteria, and whether these ensure equitable access for all organisations. As such, the Committee asked TSIs for their views on the following:

1. Are third sector organisations sufficiently aware of the Scottish Government support available and the eligibility criteria?

2. In your opinion does the application process and eligibility criteria favour or disadvantage any particular type of organisation?

3. Can you provide examples of where local organisations have had their TSRF application rejected and reasons given?

4. Is the Fund sufficient? If not, what is required from the Scottish Government? 5. Has there been an increase in demand for the services of the third sector over

recent months and if so, what services are more in demand? 6. Can you provide examples of successful collaborations between third sector

organisations and other groups? The Committee received 17 submissions from TSIs across Scotland as well a joint submission from SCVO, Firstport, Social Investment Scotland and Corra Foundation (SCVO has a coordinating role and the others have been commissioned by the SG to manage the TSRF on its behalf). Although submissions from a wide range of geographies were received, it is striking that the TSIs from Scotland’s two largest cities chose not to submit evidence. 1. Awareness of TSRF and other support Most TSIs reported high levels of awareness of the Third Sector Resilience Fund (TSRF). Some, for example Argyll and Bute, North Lanarkshire and West Lothian, surveyed their members in preparation for answering our call for views and found the majority of organisations were aware. Of course, TSIs have an important role to play in informing local organisations about funding opportunities. Many, for example Aberdeenshire Voluntary Action, employ dedicated officers to help smaller organisations locate and apply for funding.

2

Some TSIs highlighted a difference in awareness levels between medium/large organisations and some of the newer and smaller organisations. Voluntary Action South Lanarkshire for example, surveyed their members and found that 39% of small community-based organisations were not sufficiently aware of the full range of support available, this despite the efforts of their TSI. There appeared to be some confusion among smaller third sector organisations about what is currently available and who can apply. The landscape is confusing, especially to those organisations without dedicated staff employed to deal with funding. Aberdeenshire Voluntary Action paints a vivid picture of the challenges facing small, overworked community bodies:

“A small community group (such as a Covid-19 ‘popup’ community group) is so busy doing what it is they do to support people and communities that only once their days work is done, will they have time to start wading through the mass of funding information.”

South Lanarkshire, East Renfrewshire, Highland and Orkney TSIs share similar stories, with the latter describing a “cluttered and confusing” funding landscape which can be particularly bewildering to smaller, local organisations. Highland TSI also describes the confusion arising from the multitude of different funding streams, each with their own approaches and application processes. The timings of the various launches of different funding streams may have added to the confusions. Stirlingshire Voluntary Enterprise, for example, believed that the TSRF has been well publicised, however various other funds have subsequently been launched. They feel:

“Had all of the funds been launched together, with artificial separation of the funds removed, it is our view that the needs of the sector would have been better met. Eligibility criteria for the funds was late in being publicised and was confused in its message, particularly for the Wellbeing Fund and Support for Communities Fund. The lack of timely clarity on these two funds impacted the implementation of the Resilience Fund.”

Likewise, Perth & Kinross Association of Voluntary Service highlights similar confusions, although in their view the demarcation between the TSRF and other funds, such as the Community Wellbeing Fund, could have been made clearer. 2. Application process and eligibility criteria Unsurprisingly, this aspect of the Third Sector Resilience Fund has been the most controversial. We asked for views on the application process and whether or not the eligibility criteria favoured or disadvantaged any particular type of organisation. The majority of responses highlighted some issues with the process and criteria. These mainly relate to:

• Organisations with healthy cash reserves being ineligible for funding. • Deadlines being tight, requiring organisations to act quickly.

3

• Lack of clarity in the criteria and problems with the language used in the application process.

• Problems caused with the application form being online only. Reserves – On this issue, the TSIs were very vocal. It seems that TSRF funding is difficult to access for organisations with at least 12 weeks’ worth of cash reserves. For example, Argyll and Bute received feedback from some of their organisations that those “who had applied the rules” and kept 12 weeks’ reserves in a ringfenced account were refused funding, while others who had used their reserves received funding. This has caused considerable disgruntlement. Midlothian TSI believes some organisations have been “penalised” for being “financially prudent”. Often these reserves are ringfenced for specific purposes, for example to support a re-start of operations after the pandemic, or possibly needed to cover staff redundancy payments. Worryingly, one West Lothian organisation informed its TSI that having been turned down for resilience funding due to its reserves policy they were now “planning contingency to wind-up [their] charity in Summer and dismiss staff”. Highland TSI argued that rather than a “universal policy” regarding reserves, “perhaps consideration of an organisation’s reserve approach, their policy and their own adherence to that would be more inclusive”. It is worth noting Argyll and Bute’s point that “shortly after the first tranche of applications were processed, the rules were relaxed on the 12-week reserve and organisations were encouraged to reapply.” In its current guidance on this issue, SCVO state: “please note that if your accounts show high levels of reserves, we cannot consider your application unless you can explain why you are unable to tap into these”. Clarity of application process and language used - Some TSIs, for example Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire and Orkney argued that the application process disadvantages some smaller grassroots organisations who lack grant-seeking expertise. Larger organisations often employ application writers or people with “business acumen”, with Aberdeenshire TSI observing that these organisations will “always be more successful in attracting grants than small community groups”. This is an important point with Orkney TSI setting out their view that the TSRF eligibility criteria may be clear to those who are familiar with business language, however smaller organisations “may think the fund is not for them” because of the language used. As such Clackmannanshire TSI believed it would have been beneficial if on the TSRF website smaller applicants were directed to their local TSI for support in completing the applications: “some of our smaller organisations were unsuccessful however once they reapplied they were successful after guidance from the TSI”. Likewise, Western Isles TSI believed it would be useful if there was a national telephone helpline for those making applications to funds where the TSI has not been involved.

4

Online application only – clearly, with organisations working remotely and people having to social distance, applications to the TSRF are being made online. According to some TSIs, this has had made it far more difficult for TSIs to directly support small organisations and help groups to make their applications. According to Aberdeenshire TSI, “it has only been once an application is submitted that a pdf of the application becomes available so there can be no checking of an application for a group who is not comfortable with what words to use in which box”. Voluntary Action Orkney made a similar point, stating “we have found it difficult to provide the usual support to smaller organisations to ensure that the criteria have been met and that all the necessary information has been included.” Other issues – Highland TSI (HTSI) claim that “the initial and ongoing focus [is] on the provision of food as one of the main criteria”. Regardless of their concerns - that such a focus “risks of developing significant levels of dependency within certain communities or within certain demographics within communities” - HTSI believe other social and community needs “are not being fully understood or met within the criteria or within the scrutiny process”. For example, it is their belief that there few applications to the TSRF from groups who actively support young people. Furthermore, HTSI had some concerns about the Scotland-wide nature of decision-making and the awarding process. In their view, “decisions made by people not based within the local area has complicated local politics and failure to understand geographic equality”. They argued that this “lack of utilisation of local intelligence in places” has restrained the full potential of the fund and “possibly failed to realise opportunities to fully create a foundation of strength upon which to recover”. Moray TSI also stressed the importance of established relationships, mutual understanding and trust between funding distributors and community-based organisations. It is their contention that organisations prefer dealing with a “local broker” like their local TSI, rather than a national body (North Lanarkshire made a similar point). 3. Information on rejected applications A number of TSIs raised concerns that the TSRF has inadvertently discouraged innovation and has actually penalised organisations for adapting services to changed circumstances. Argyll and Bute, for example, described a situation whereby a group had included in their application plans on how they were adapting to the Covid-19 circumstances in their area. Apparently, their application was rejected on the grounds that funding is for “current provision” only. The organisation therefore felt this was unfair “as they were trying to support the community the best way they could and felt penalized that their innovation had cost them the funding”. Likewise, Midlothian TSI highlighted an example of an organisation being rejected because they had moved their service delivery online. Aberdeenshire described the difficult situation some village halls and community facilities are finding themselves in. Clearly, social distancing requirements and lockdown legislation mean that these venues can no longer provide services and are therefore not eligible for TSRF funding. However, they still have overheads to pay and are therefore “falling between the cracks”.

5

The reserves issue was again raised as a common reason for applications being rejected (see above). Some organisations, for example two based in Shetland, were informed that their application was rejected because “other applicants demonstrated a more urgent need for financial assistance”. 4. Sufficient support from TSRF This was perhaps the most difficult question for the TSIs to answer. As a number of respondents have observed, including Stirlingshire TSI, demand for TSRF support has clearly outstripped the amounts actually paid out in grants and loans (a fact confirmed in the joint submission from Firstport, Corra Foundation, Social Investment Scotland, and SCVO). Moray TSI for example said their understanding is that the TSRF has been oversubscribed, “which would lead us to conclude the funding available was not sufficient”. North Lanarksire were more forthcoming concluding “the fund is insufficient by a very long way when the scale and scope of the Scottish community and voluntary sector is considered and the risk to their income due to C-19”. Other TSIs, such as those in Highland and Renfrewshire believed that the fund may have been sufficient to meet “immediate need”, but they still voiced concerns about what happens next. Perth & Kinross Association of Voluntary Services also stated that the funds released thus far have been for the short term, “focused on the immediacy of the pandemic”, but concluded “what happens beyond this initial reaction remains to be seen”. Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire TSIs also raised similar points, as organisations in their areas look to the future and have real concerns about how they will manage the work they are funded to do beyond the emergency phase. Aberdeenshire TSI argued that the current funding was not sufficient to help organisations plan for recovery and renewal:

“Organisations have not been able to engage in any meaningful fund raising for the last two months, so Scottish Government needs to start planning for how it will be able to support community groups and organisations to plug that gap, otherwise those small groups and organisations will face a very difficult future.”

Also looking to the medium and long term, Highland, Orkney and Shetland TSIs believed one of the main challenges for the third sector will emerge as lockdown eases and emergency funds disappear “whilst the needs of the most vulnerable increase and intensify”. This is vividly described in the Highland submission, as the knock-on effects from the tourism crisis are felt across most Highlands and Islands communities:

“Finally looking to the recovery, we anticipate significant impacts on the Sector due to increased unemployment, reduced incomes and more vulnerable families. Within Highland we have a high dependency on tourism and agencies are indicating that it could take up to two years for the industry to fully recover, meaning that communities who have previously not experienced deprivation at significant levels could be at risk. These factors could also have an impact on housing and homelessness within the region.”

6

The Western Isles TSI concluded that “no one knows if the fund is truly sufficient and there is some confusion and reticence to spend everything awarded in case there is no confirmation of what funding may be available in the medium to longer term.” 5. Changes in level of demand for services Almost all TSIs reported significant increases in demand for the services of some third sector organisations. Various case studies were provided in the submissions; however, those services most in demand at the moment include food and household supplies, counselling, domestic violence support, online activities for children, bereavement support, reducing isolation/befriending services and tackling homelessness services. Clackmannanshire TSI state that the third sector has led the response to the Covid-19 crisis in their local area. East Renfrewshire believe that any organisation previously involved in delivering services designed to increase community networks, maintaining local connections and decreasing incidents of loneliness “have found this situation both a unique opportunity to re-design services but also increasingly challenging” as new ways of keeping in touch must be found. Their neighbours in Renfrewshire have also noticed a significant increase in demand for digital support, with the third sector having an important role to play in providing laptops for home use for children and families. Midlothian and Moray TSIs have both noticed a particular spike in demand for mental health services, a trend they anticipate will continue to increase. However, the Highland TSI submission describes a “mixed picture” across its area. Of course, the third sector has an impressive footprint in the Highlands and operate across various economic sectors, so for organisations such as cafés, environmental projects, museums, etc. demand has dried up or very much been put on hold. 6. Examples of successful collaborations Each submission presents various examples of collaborations within their local areas, most of them arising in response to the Covid-19 crisis. Some are collaborations between existing third sector bodies; foodbanks, development trusts, housing associations, etc. Others are newly formed partnerships between third sector bodies and local businesses, often but not exclusively in the area of food provision for vulnerable households. Churches, sports clubs and community councils have also played their part in successful partnerships. It is clear that the TSIs are impressed and heartened by these collaborations and their efforts in helping their communities during this period. It is difficult to do justice to all of these projects in this short summary. Members are therefore recommended to read the submissions in their entirety, or at least those submissions most relevant to their constituencies or regions.

7

Greig Liddell Senior Researcher Scottish Parliament Information Centre (SPICe) 29 May 2020