As a Foundation, it is our privilege to support Lambeth residents studying at further/higher education and schools and organisations making a massive impact in the local community.  It is very important that our grants are provided effectively, efficiently and supportively.  To help with this, we carry out a Listening Exercise every three years to get systematic feedback from grantees on what is working well but more importantly where we can improve our systems and our service.

To check how we are doing we commissioned IVAR were commissioned to carry out Walcot Foundation’s Triennial Listening Exercise.  We anticipate repeating this exercise again in 2025.

An online survey was sent out to individuals and organisations/schools in January.  104 individuals and 57 organisations/schools completed the survey.  Two focus groups (one for individuals and one for organisations) were carried out in late February 2022.  Both had 12 participants.   The final report was completed on 28 April 2022 (copy with the papers).  We reviewed the feedback and amended our processes in response - see below for details.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Overall the response from grantees was very positive about the Walcot Foundation:

• Application process - In general, grantees found the application process straightforward and flexible. They appreciated the support provided by the Foundation staff. Organisations valued having Expression of Interest conversations prior to a full application. For students, the support provided was essential, as some found the online application process overwhelming, due to the amount of information that had to be digested.
• Reporting - The majority of individual and organisational grantees said that reporting arrangements were straightforward and appropriate to the grant: ‘We are treated as partners rather than some top-down reporting requirement’.
• Non-financial support offer - Just under half of students who responded, had accessed the non-financial support and the majority found it ‘very’, ‘extremely’ or ‘slightly helpful’. For organisations, feedback about peer support was very positive: ‘They organise a Peer Support Network group through which I have made loads of connections with other groups and organisations’.
• Communication - The Foundation staff were supportive, and human. The majority of individual grantees ‘felt listened to and treated as an individual’. Similarly, the majority of organisations felt that the Foundation ‘responds promptly to communications’ (e.g. emails, queries, end of year reports) and they appreciated being able to speak directly to grant officers.
• Commitment to Lambeth - Grantees recognise the genuine commitment that the Foundation has to Lambeth and its residents as a local place-based funder: ‘Their strength is that they know Lambeth and the people of the area – they certainly get what we do’.

RESPONSE TO FEEDBACK
Process Changes - Individuals:

1. Reporting from college students amended so they provide a short, written report (similar to university students which had a 90% approval rating) and are no longer required to provide receipts.
2. College students prefer phone calls to emails.  Our phone number is prominent and easily accessible on our website.  It was also on our documentation chaser email (which is often a key point of communication).  However we have now made that more prominent on the chaser email and made it clear that we are happy to respond to phone calls.
3. We have made it more prominent on our website that grantees can receive support from Centre 70 if they are finding it difficult to complete an application.  NB This information is already clearly shown at the start of our on-line application form.
4. We have made it much clearer that we will accept proof of Universal Credit claim from parent rather than full bank statement as proof of low-income.  We hope that this will be viewed as less intrusive and so less likely to cause problems in the rare cases where students find it difficult to provide financial information from their parents.

Process Changes - Organisations:

1. Simplified the organisation application form through reducing the number of questions in the application form and providing suggestions on the question response length so that organisations do not feel the need to provide lots of information.  NB We have not created word counts as previous feedback has indicated that grantees also find word counts on forms frustrating and time consuming.  Also, we are not going to offer the option of ‘video applications’.  Given the grant sizes involved, our view is that it is important there are written applications both for accountability and clarity on both sides. Also if organisations have issues with writing applications, we can link them with CLEN our capacity building partner.
2. It will be made clearer on our website that the application process is a supportive process. The Grants Team take time with each organisation to help ensure that the outputs and outcomes are clear and fit with Walcot priorities. This is particularly important for new/small organisations that do not have significant fundraising capacity or groups with additional needs (e.g. dyslexia).
3. The verbal Expression of Interest process is viewed very positively (94%), including for people with dyslexia. However, we need to review if additional tools are available to ensure that this process is fully accessible (e.g. for deaf people).  This will be reviewed and put in place for the next round in July.
4. We will provide an anonymised example of a completed report so as to help organisations have clarity on WF’s reporting requirements.
5. Adaptations to budgets – there were concerns raised by some organisations where their budgets have been reduced during the grant approval process.  This is something that happens rarely (7% of grant approvals in last five years).  In reviewing cases, this typically occurred when we required match funding from schools or there were class-wide initiatives and we could only cover pupil premium pupil costs.  We remain committed to providing full-cost recovery and awarding full budget amounts, unless there are compelling reasons not to do so. If there are differences between requested amount and awarded amount, we will be clear about the reasons and discuss these with the applicant.  

Strategic Issues
Within this review of grant-making processes, some issues were highlighted that are more strategic in nature rather than process-orientated.  These would be considered as part of the forthcoming strategic Governor Priorities review and fed back at a later date:

1. Providing core funding rather than project funding (i.e. balance between providing flexibility for grantees and ensuring our funding is used to benefit low-income Lambeth residents).
2. Providing longer than six years uninterrupted funding (i.e. balance between the needs of new and existing grantees).
3. Considering funding more than one project within a school (i.e. balance between needs in a particular area/school and providing a more geographically spread response).

---