|
|
|
We ran Focus Groups in September 2010 to see what we could learn from a variety of people and groups who had some experience of our work (1). And we promsied we would post the results.
The following themes emerged from all the focus groups:
Responding to this second point is not straightforward for us. We wish to ensure that everyone who is eligible for our grants knows about them, but we are a small organisation with a limited amount of money for grants. We try to strike a balnace, and to avoid creating a demand for our services that we are unable to meet.
We have been implementing some of the ideas generated by the Focus Group exercise and will continue to draw on them.
Results in more detail
Comments from the Focus Groups appear in bold text. Our response is shown in italics.
Publicity & promotions
Participants believed that the Foundation should advertise widely across Lambeth where people will see the information in their everyday activities.
We’re always open to new developments that are cost-effective and which do not create unmanageable demand. At the moment we use the internet, grant-making directories, an eNews service, printed material and word of mouth. We are considering the suggestions made about social media such as Facebook and Twitter.
Participants were shown examples of posters and asked for their ideas on what was effective.
We found the views of the groups very interesting, especially the perceived value of images versus text. We will consider these in future design work.
There were strong ideas about language that should be used in publicity.
We will continue to bear the following in mind while developing all new publicity
All participants said they would like a free phone number on publicity material as not everyone can – or wish to - access the internet.
We acknowledge the desirability of this but after discussion, we concluded that we did not have the staffing resources to respond to more phone calls then we already receive.
Participants said the website was easy to use although a one page summary of eligibility criteria for grants would be helpful.
We have improved the eligibility checklist on the individual grants application form and are soon to put our financial eligibility calculator on the website for potential applicants to use.
Eligibility for grants
Some participants who already had a first degree or previous career but cannot get work in their field, would have liked to apply for a grant for retraining.
We have modified the career history criteria to take into account how long individuals have been out of work. We are also considering whether it would be appropriate to take into consideration how long it has been since an individual achieved their qualification but, at this stage, the existing criteria remain in force: if an individual has a first degree we cannot award a grant. Our aim remains to help those who may have missed out on usual routes to employment to get access to them.
Application process
Most participants said the process was relatively straightforward and had improved in recent years. Also once you have applied, re-applying in future years is much easier. However there was consensus that the system favoured people who had good IT skills and access to computers.
We understand that this is a problem for some. Where this is the case we provide access to an Advice Worker at Centre 70 in West Norwood who can support individuals to complete their applications.
Applicants have also found it can be difficult to get timely information from student finance to support the application.
We recognise this and have begun to award grants based on evidence that the application for statutory student finance has been made even if the outcome is not yet known.
It was suggested that a “check & send” service – like the passport application service - would be useful to ensure that applicants have provided all supporting evidence required.
This is an excellent idea and we now check applications as soon as we receive them and notify applicants as soon as possible if there is anything else they need to send us.
Some participants thought that learning about case studies would be helpful.
This is very helpful and we now have plans to do this – both in written ‘snap shots’ and in video.
Participants suggested that it would be helpful for some applicants, particularly those who were not confident in their literacy, IT or language skills to have ongoing support. Past grant beneficiaries said that they would be happy to “give something back” and “mentor” new applicants.
We like this idea and are assessing the feasibility of a mentoring programme that would match past beneficiaries with current/potential applicants by language, field of study etc.
Monitoring
Participants fed back that the monitoring process is straightforward and they understood the need to produce receipts to show how the grant was spent.
Only some realised that it was possible to apply for more than one grant and suggested that this could be promoted more widely.
We say this in our grant award letters and we also, send periodic texts and emails to current beneficiaries to let them know that if they are continuing their studies they can apply again the following year. We will consider how to make this clearer on our website.
Feedback from the focus groups for organisations and schools
Publicity & promotions
Both organisations and schools tended to know about WF through “word of mouth”. However participants suggested various ways in which WF could support networking and promote grant opportunities more widely.
We are considering the following initiatives in order to support networking as suggested:
Surgeries held two or three times a year where local organisations and schools can get more information about grants available and the application process
Eligibility for grants
Some participants fed back that while it can be straightforward using entitlement to free school meals as an indicator, some individuals who have no recourse to public funds may not be eligible and people on low wages and tax credits can fall just above the eligibility level
We are aware of the limitations of the FSM indicator and it has always been the case that grants are available to individuals financially eligible for FSM but not eligible for other reasons or just above the FSM threshold. We have created a Financial Eligibility Template (available on our website for groups to adapt) to clearly state that those on low wage and entitled to tax credits or with no recourse to public funds are eligible for our grants.
Some organisations said that the information required to demonstrate eligibility was ‘too personal’ to collect when projects work with large groups or individuals who may be worried about disclosing information about household finances.
We know that this can be seen as difficult but knowing that our funding is reaching those who meet our financial eligibility criteria is essential. We often provide organisations with free access to external advice on how it is possible to collect this information sensitively.
One participant suggested that organisations should be asked to ensure that service users are within the target group and this should be enough evidence.
From past experience we know that this is not adequate and we are aware of previous grants that have benefitted more advantaged individuals who are not our target group.
Application process
The majority of participants reported that the application process is quite straightforward. However some schools reported that there is not enough room on the form to explain how a project will make a difference and some would like to include a detailed proposal.
We have checked our schools application form and ensured that the fields expand as needed.
Referrals to individual grants programme
There was some confusion amongst organisations about whether referring a beneficiary to the individual grants programme meant completing the application on behalf of the individual or simply informing people about the programme and providing contact details.
We would usually expect individuals to complete the application themselves. Those who need support can utilise the services of the Advice Worker we fund at Centre 70 who will assist them to complete the application.
Some organisations reported that different members of the household can be reluctant to provide information about their income in case it affects their benefits or because they is perceive it to be too personal.
One-off grants under current Government rules do not affect benefits. We understand that this can be a sensitive issue but we need to know that beneficiaries meet our criteria. Several participants believed that having a mortgage should not mean they are ineligible for an individual grant as they can still be on a very low income.
We have reviewed our policy on this. The issue is that ownership of a home, even when mortgaged, is still a financial asset and as such we believe that this does disqualify people from our target group. There are other grant-makers, such as benevolent funds, that are focused on individuals who have temporarily fallen on hard times. Our grants are targeted on those who have never had experience of financial security.
Around half the schools were unaware of the individual grants programme
Schools with Lambeth pupils are included in our email news bulletins.
Those to whom these are sent include Head Teachers, school administrative officers, Learning Mentors, Welfare tutors, SENCOs, Music, Arts and PE Co-ordinators, Subject and year heads and Assistant head teachers.
Some organisations and schools were unsure if they received the regular WF e-newsletter and whether you needed to sign up for it.
The signing up box for the eNewsletter is on the top right hand corner of the website which asks if people want to join WF’s mailing list. It is an automated system allowing people to sign up, amend their details or unsubscribe.
Referrals to partner organisations (topic discussed in the organisations focus group only)
Most were aware of WF-funded services at Centre 70 (budgeting/debt advice and assistance with WF individual grant applications) and Ingeus (careers advice) and referred individuals to them. Some complained that Centre 70 did not answer the phone.
These services are advertised on our website. We now give out the Advice Worker’s direct mobile number rather than the general Centre 70 telephone number.
Some organisations did not know about the partner organisations and said an event where partner organisations could give presentations on their work and WF funded organisations could network with others would be useful. A similar suggestion was an event for service users of WF funded organisations.
We held an event of this nature in October 2010 and intend to organise more in the future. This resulted in an unprecedented number of grant applications and our partner organisations received a large increase of referrals as a direct result of this event. At the moment we believe we have the balance between publicity, publicly available information and the ability to process applications about right.
Monitoring
Organisations and schools said that it was clear why they needed to provide evidence that the grant had been spent on the agreed purpose and that the process was quite straightforward.
Organisations were divided on the benefits of monitoring beneficiaries for 2-3 years, especially as the population can be quite mobile and it is difficult to keep up to date with contact details. Also, it is not always easy to attribute the impact of the project on individual beneficiaries
We are keen to find out what interventions are effective in the short and long term to support our target beneficiaries to become financially self-sufficient. We offer a long-term monitoring top-up grant of up to £1,000 a year to organisations with an active grant. For new grantee organisations long-term monitoring planning and funding is part of the application process. Through WF’s grant, ADP Consultancy can provide free support with defining systems for both the short and long term monitoring of outcomes.
Some schools commented that completing the monitoring spreadsheet could be problematic and time consuming if you had large numbers in the project.
We will review the form to see what we can do to make it easier to complete yet still address issues of accountability.
Schools also reported that they would like some feedback on monitoring data to find out “what works".
We welcome this. It reflects some thinking we have done within the Foundation. We plan to post this kind of information on our website, and to alert people to it via our eNews.
Schools also pointed out that quantitative data from small projects may be too small to be statistically validated and could be balanced with case studies.
We think this is true in some cases. We plan to ask schools for case studies (and have already begun doing so with educational field trip grants).
(1) There were four groups:
Group 1: Individuals who had no direct experience of WF or applying for WF individual grants.
Group 2: Individuals who had applied for grants before including both successful and unsuccessful applicants.
Group 3: Organisations that had applied for WF grants or had the potential to do so.
Group 4: Schools that had applied for WF grants or had the potential to do so.