Impact assessment

Evaluation of the VCSE COVID-19 Emergency Funding Package: summary findings

Published 28 April 2022

Overview

On 8 April 2020, the Chancellor announced an unprecedented emergency funding package of £750 million for the Voluntary, Community, and Social Enterprise (VCSE) sector. The funding aimed to ensure that charities and other VCSE organisations (the ‘grantholders’) could continue day-to-day work during the pandemic and meet any increased demand to support people in need (the ‘service users’).

The Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) commissioned NatCen Social Research, in partnership with RSM UK Consulting LLP, to carry out an evaluation of the funding package. The evaluation aimed to assess the impact of the funding on grantholders, and on people and communities in need (impact evaluation); as well as assessing how well the scheme worked and if it was implemented as intended (process evaluation). The evaluation also sets out key lessons and practical recommendations to inform how government interacts with the VCSE sector and how it can best implement future emergency funding initiatives.

The evaluation takes a theory-based, mixed methods approach. It combines primary research and secondary data analysis covering eight of the funding package’s nine funding streams (for more information on the funding streams see Overview of the funding streams section below).^{[footnote 1]} Primary data collection took place between September 2021 and February 2022, during which:

• over 40 documents^{[footnote 2]} were extracted and synthesised
• 2,594 organisations completed a survey of grantholders
• 540 individuals completed a survey of volunteers
• 103 grantholder interviews were conducted
• 3 group discussions were held with sector representatives
• 4 group discussions were held with funding bodies
• 19 case studies were conducted involving interviews with 20 strategic and 20 operational staff, 11 volunteers and 31 service users^{[footnote 3]}

A quantitative value for money (VfM) assessment was not planned for this evaluation, due to data limitations across some of the funding streams and a lack of a readily identifiable counterfactual. However, the main report does include a qualitative assessment of VfM, set out in ‘VfM spotlights’ and summarised in the concluding chapter. A quantitative VfM analysis was conducted for the Coronavirus Community Support Fund as part of the programme-level evaluation of this funding stream.^{[footnote 4]} Further information of the wider methodology and study limitations are provided in the main report.

Summary of impact evaluation findings

The impact of the funding package was assessed using a contribution analysis approach, which examined the extent to which available evidence supported five pre-determined contribution statements. These statements were developed from a theory of change^{[footnote 5]} which underpinned the evaluation.

Contribution statement 1: the funding package contributed to grantholders’ financial position during the COVID-19 pandemic.

For the sector as a whole, when income was so threatened, this fund was a real life-saver.

– Case study staff member

Overall, the evaluation finds that there is strong evidence to conclude that the funding did contribute to the financial position of grantholders.

In total, the funding package supported over 14,000 organisations.

A majority (64%) of grantholders used the funding to make sure they had the funds to continue operating. Of these, 75% reported that it had helped ‘a great deal’ or ‘quite a bit’ to improve their financial health. Smaller grantholders (those with one staff member or none) were more likely to have reported a positive effect, with 51% saying they felt the funding had helped their financial position ‘a great deal’, compared to 42% among larger grantholders (>50 staff).

Without the VCSE funding, approximately 60% felt their annual turnover would have fallen substantially (38%) or a little (21%) during the pandemic. With the VCSE funding, only 37% reported that their annual turnover fell substantially (17%) or a little (21%).

Figure 1: Change in income with or without VCSE funding package

Income change	Income change with emergency funding	Expected income change without emergency funding
Fall substantially	17%	38%
Fall a little	21%	21%
Remain unchanged	15%	17%
Increase a little	29%	16%
Increase substantially	15%	4%

Base: all grantholders (2,551); Base: all grantholders who gave a response when asked if annual turnover had changed since the pandemic (2,447). Note: totals are 96% and 97% respectively, ‘Don’t know’ and ‘Prefer not to say’ responses are not shown.

Alternative explanations

For each of the contribution statements, possible alternative explanations are considered, which may also be contributing factors to the observed results. These alternative explanations include:

• the contribution of other sources of emergency funding which may have helped grantholders to maintain their core services – for example, 77% of grantholders received grant funding from other sources during the pandemic
• the impact of initiatives begun prior to the pandemic that were supported, but not initiated by the funding – for example, the grantholder interviews provided instances of the funding being used to support a shift to digital delivery that had begun prior to the pandemic
• non-monetary factors that supported the delivery of outcomes – for example, while funding supported organisations to work with volunteers, outcomes would not have been delivered without the intrinsic motivation of the volunteers themselves (e.g., 78% of volunteers said that they had volunteered because the cause was very important to them)

Contribution statement 2: the funding package contributed to grantholders’ ability to continue and / or expand core services either through retaining or increasing staff or volunteer capacity, or through collaborations with other organisations.

It was one of the most rewarding volunteering experiences I’ve had. The need was obvious, the logistical exercise was demanding but fulfilling, and you really felt you made a definite difference.

– Case study volunteer

The evaluation finds that there is strong evidence to conclude that the funding did contribute to the grantholders’ ability to continue or expand core services.

Without the funding, 92% of grantholders said they would have had to reduce the level of services offered, including 13% who said they would have had to close or stop services altogether. With the support, 58% of grantholders reported they had used the funding to increase the level of services they provided, with 24% maintaining the same level of service provision. Only around 1% had needed to stop delivering services and 17% had still had to reduce the level of service provision.

Funding helped grantholders to maintain services, in part thanks to retaining or expanding their workforce over this period. Some 42% of grantholders used the funding to retain current staff, and 15% used it to take on new employees. The package helped some grantholders to keep staff from entering the furlough scheme (16%) or bring staff back from furlough (8%).

As well as supporting paid staff, the funding package also helped grantholders to maintain or expand their volunteer base. One-third of grantholders (33%) used the funding to continue working with their existing volunteers, and 21% to begin working with new volunteers. Overall, this accounted for 40% of grantholders using the funding they received to maintain or expand their pool of volunteers.

For grantholders using funding in this way, the median number of volunteers that they were able to support was 10. This means that across our survey respondents alone, the funding package supported 51,300 volunteers, who would not have participated in volunteering with these organisations without the funding. Of these volunteers, approximately 12,100 were new volunteers.

The contribution of the funding package to core and programme costs and staffing, meant that grantholders were able to deliver a wide range of activities to support communities and people in need, shown below in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Proportion of grantholders delivering specified activities through the funding package

Activity	Percentage
Encouraged social connections and tackled loneliness	59%
Information and advice	44%
Mental health support and related services	38%
Improved digital access generally	26%
Education related activities	24%
Help with material deprivation	23%
Support with other urgent needs	13%
Other care services (besides childcare)	11%
Youth/extra-curricular activities	10%
Improved digital access for people with disabilities	7%
Childcare support	3%
Medical care	2%
Other	12%

Base: all grantholders (2,498). Note: this was a multiple-choice question, so totals do not equal 100%.

Contribution statement 3: the funding package contributed to grantholders’ ability to adapt and / or innovate delivery models to provide services and reach existing and / or new service users during the COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID obviously impacted us because we had to work a different way but the funding then gave us technology to enable that way of working to happen.

– Case study, BNI grantholder

The evaluation finds that there is strong evidence to conclude that the funding package was used by grantholders to adapt and/ or innovate their services for delivery during the pandemic to reach those in need.

Nearly all (93%) grantholders used the funding to continue or increase capacity for their existing services, adapt their service for delivery during the pandemic, or to deliver new services. This included:

• 64% who used the funding to enable them to continue delivering services
• 45% to meet increased demand for existing services
• 43% to meet demand for new needs arisen during the pandemic
• 64% to adapt how they delivered services for the pandemic

The restrictions imposed during COVID-19 meant many had to adapt the way services were delivered. A range of adaptations were reported by grantholders, including:

• 72% remote delivery (through video calls and online messaging)
• 38% telephone delivery
• 48% face-to-face delivery.

A tenth of organisations (10%) moved their services online in other ways, including webinars, helping service users get set up online, moving services to their websites (e.g. online self-referral, training materials), podcasts, expanding the use of social media.

The 19 depth case studies conducted as part of this evaluation, and published in the case study report, provide detailed examples of how grantholders used funds to adapt to the pandemic, and the impact this had on their staff, volunteers and service users.

Contribution statement 4: the funding package enabled grantholder organisations to reach and support people and communities in need during COVID-19, which resulted in positive outcomes for service users.

It’s definitely improved my mental health, I feel loads better, I’ve got a lot more coping techniques.

– Case study service user

The evaluation finds that there is strong evidence that the funding package contributed to the ability of grantholders to meet the needs of service users.

However, a caveat to this is that service users’ experiences were directly collected only through the qualitative case studies. As a result, our data about their outcomes is primarily indirect – collected through interviews and surveys with grantholders. The strong evidence rating is given due to the alignment of findings across the different research strands making up the overall evaluation.

In total, surveyed grantholders reported that they were able to help approximately 4.5 million service users between them.^{[footnote 6]} When scaled to the total amount of funding received across all the funding streams covered in the primary research, this brings the estimated number of service users reached to 14.9 million. Combined with the estimate from the Coronavirus Community Support Fund evaluation (which was part of the funding package, but evaluated separately) - this brings the total estimated number of services users reached by the funding package to 21.5 million.

However, it should be noted that some double counting may have occurred where individuals used multiple services. Furthermore, the level of support provided to service users was highly varied, ranging from one-off information provision to more sustained engagement over a number of months.

Grantholders used the funding to deliver services that provided support to a diverse range of service user groups (Figure 3). There was a particular focus on children and young people, supported by 58% of grantholders. Support was also provided to individuals from specific groups at risk of marginalisation, including ethnic minority groups, individuals facing financial hardship, people at risk of domestic abuse, homeless people, asylum seekers and refugees and LGBTQ+ groups. As a result of the wide range of service users supported, grantholders report contributing to a diverse spectrum of outcomes, the most common of which are shown in Figure 4.

Figure 3: Proportion of grantholders who supported specified beneficiary groups

Beneficiary group	Percentage
No specific group – support is universal	16%
Children and young people	58%
People at greater risk of loneliness of isolation	33%
People with a long-term illness or disability	27%
Families facing financial hardship	24%
Older people	18%
Individuals facing financial hardship	18%
Ethnic minority groups	18%
People with a short-term illness or disability	16%
People at risk of domestic abuse	13%
Asylum seekers and/or refugees	10%
Homeless people	10%
People dealing with substance misuse	9%
LGBTQ+ people	8%
Religious and faith groups	4%
People at end of life and their families	4%
Carers and those supporting the people above	18%

Base: all grantholders excluding the Hospice Fund (2,525). Note: respondents could choose more than one option, so totals do not equal 100%.

Figure 4: Proportion of grantholders reporting achieved outcomes for service users

Outcome	Percentage
Improved mental health and wellbeing	70%
More opportunity for social contact	62%
Reduced experiences of loneliness	58%
Skills and confidence development	56%
Increased resilience and ability to respond to changing circumstances	52%

Base: All grantholders (2,506). Note: this was a multiple-choice question so totals do not equal 100%.

Grantholders, however, stressed in qualitative interviews that service users’ needs did not end when funding ended in March 2021. Instead, funding was needed beyond this point as the pandemic and its impacts had not come to an end.

Contribution statement 5: the funding package enabled grantholders to support people and communities to access support and services they needed during the pandemic, through a) accessing information; b) increasing digital capabilities; c) increasing community organisation.

Many enjoyed the aspects of helping other people – delivering the kits and helping the wider community, makes others feel good.

– BNI grantholder

The evaluation finds that there is moderate evidence that the funding package enabled grantholders to support people and communities to access support and services they needed during the pandemic. We have allocated a moderate evidence rating here due to much of the supporting evidence coming from qualitative and secondary data sources.

In addition to direct provision of services, it was also anticipated that the funding package would enable people to access wider support. The survey of grantholders showed that the funding package was used to deliver this in two ways. Firstly, it supported people’s access to public information, with two-fifths of grantholders (41%) reporting that their service users were better informed about sources of support. It also improved access to online and digital resources, with 28% of grantholders reporting they used the funding to increase access to digital services (including digital equipment, training and internet access).

Grantholder interviewees described their services as helping service users access relevant information. One particular theme in this respect was cutting through the sheer scale and amount of guidance and information that was available to people throughout the pandemic. Service users also described situations where grantholders directed them to further support offers and sources of funding, sometimes providing help with the application process. For example, a foster carer received assistance to apply for money from the Prince’s Trust to help support her 18-year-old foster child.

Some grantholders innovated in the way they delivered their services, in particular through the use of digital technology and solutions. Some also used funding to increase digital, data and technology capabilities of service users. For example, one case study organisation provided young people with laptops to enable them to continue their studies remotely. Another organisation that worked with unemployed people used funding to continue provision of IT classes.

Summary of process evaluation findings

The process was very simple to do. The government made it easier to submit an application. In the past we got small grants for specific pieces of work and needed much more detail. This was much easier than expected, it was streamlined.

– OGD grantholder

Grantholders found the funding application process straightforward, with 76% reporting they found the process “very” or “fairly easy”. However, grantholders often found out about the funding through existing networks. Without these networks, some organisations may not have found out about the funding, which would have impacted reach.

Grantholders generally reported that working with established funders helped to access funding in a straightforward way. This was because these funders know the grantholders, their services, and their services users. Where funders enabled this, grantholders stressed that flexibility in how funding could be used, including using funding for core operational costs rather than for specific projects, which was very positively received.

Generally, it was felt that the speed with which decisions were made and funding allocated was good and that reporting arrangements were proportionate.

However, it was felt that while flexibility was offered in some areas (e.g., core/ unrestricted funding) the requirement to have all funds spent by the 31 March 2021 deadline was an issue for grantholders. The deadline was seen as too short and prescriptive, and some flexibility could have been offered to spend a small proportion of funds after this deadline, without the need to hand back any funds not used. In some instances, it was felt this went against the principle of responsible closure.

Key lessons and recommendations

A series of lessons learned have been identified in this evaluation which will help inform how emergency funding packages can be designed and delivered in future.

Drawing on the networks and expertise of established and new funders

The funding package’s success in achieving its aims can in part be ascribed to the government’s approach in partnering with established funders. For example, moving swiftly to engage established funders such as the Big Night In Partners and other government departments in mobilising support to the most vulnerable communities. This involved new partnerships between government and funders that had not worked with government previously. For example, a series of large foundations with extensive networks and delivery arms across the country. These funders and the organisations they fund know the needs of service users well and were able to respond quickly.

Need for greater appreciation of the sectors’ contribution

All groups of participants interviewed fed back on the need for government to better appreciate and understand the role and value of the VCSE sector. Many respondents felt that there was a lack of understanding that the VCSE sector provided a substantial proportion of vital public services, which helped government with their delivery needs. However, throughout the funding process they felt that the expectation was for the sector to feel grateful for the package of support they received. At the same time, sector representatives also recognised that the sector also has a role to play in better communicating its value to government.

Need for greater trust in the sector

Funding leads and sector representatives also highlighted their desire for the government to place more trust in the sector and those organisations working within it. This included trust in the systems and processes organisations already had in place for grant making and delivery, and trust in the data being reported back. Additional systems of checks were seen as an inappropriate use of time, with organisations having to invest additional resource to support third parties brought in to apply these processes. Many organisations, including representative groups, consistently highlighted that the sector has developed systems, mechanisms, ways of working and processes that have been embedded over many years.

Flexibility is a key strength

Grantholders, sector representatives and many funding partners recognised that the funding package provided grantholders with the flexibility to use funding to meet needs where they arose. For example, the flexibility to draw on funding received to meet immediate and hugely challenging core costs. At the same time, they were clear that, while the funding was positive and addressed many immediate needs, it could have been more impactful if this flexibility had been carried further, especially with regard to timelines. While funding had to be spent at the latest by end of March 2021, the effects of the pandemic would continue for a long time after. If grantholders had been able to use funding beyond this point, they felt they would have been able to even better address needs.

Several recommendations have also been drawn from the key findings of the evaluation and these can be found in section 8.4 of the main report. They are aimed at providing a series of practical steps to consider when mobilising funding mechanisms in any future emergency context.

Overview of the funding streams

The funding package comprised nine funding streams, of which eight were covered in this evaluation. Delivery mechanisms, service users and intended outcomes varied between the funding streams, as did the timelines for delivery of activities by grantholders. The funding streams were:^{[footnote 7]}

Funding stream	Grant value	Grant details
Big Night In (BNI)	Distributed £37m between three sub-funds: Children in Need (CiN), Comic Relief (CR), National Emergencies Trust (NET).	The CiN sub-fund responded to the needs of vulnerable and marginalised children. The CR sub-fund focussed on supporting families and communities to meet the needs of young children, women and girls, those requiring mental health support and those who are homeless or facing insecure housing. The NET sub-fund was more broadly focussed on the needs of vulnerable people in local communities.
Community Match Challenge (CMC)	Distributed £84.6m in match funding using 20 charity funding partners.	The fund aimed to support a range of service users based on their needs, including older people, disabled people, children and young people, carers, low income families, the homeless, victims of domestic abuse and people with learning disabilities.
Coronavirus Community Support Fund (CCSF)	£199m distributed by The National Lottery Fund	The fund aimed to provide support for vulnerable people affected by the pandemic and to reduce closures of essential organisations.
Other Government Departments (OGD)	Made up of eight central government departments, distributed £163m across a total of 24 sub-funds.	This was allocated in order to address the needs of a wide range of people by providing emergency relief during the COVID-19 pandemic; support adaptations to services for delivery and support the continuation of core operations to offset loss of revenue.
Hospices	Hospices were issued £155.8m by NHS England. This was distributed to Hospice UK.	The fund aimed to alleviate the financial pressures on hospices during the COVID-19 pandemic and to enable them to provide palliative care and COVID-19 clinical services whether for inpatient care in hospices or in the community.
Voluntary & Community Sector Emergencies Partnership (VCSEP)	Distributed £4.8m through 200 local and 30 national partner organisations.	The fund aimed to support the coordination of the emergency response to COVID-19 (e.g., through the national vaccination programme).
Youth Covid-19 Support Fund (YCSF)	Distributed £16.5m to a mixture of grassroots youth clubs, uniformed youth groups, national youth and umbrella organisations based in England.	The fund aimed to enable youth organisations to continue operating, targeting those that were impactful but struggling.
The Winter Loneliness Fund	Distributed £7.5m across three existing schemes (Arts Council England, the Audio Content Fund, and the Community Radio Fund).	The fund aimed to tackle loneliness among vulnerable groups, particularly in the context of winter and pandemic lockdowns.

1. The Devolved Administrations fund is out of scope for this evaluation as the UK government was not involved in administering or managing the fund. Furthermore, no additional evidence was gathered for Coronavirus Community Support Fund (CCSF) as an independent evaluation has already been conducted and therefore its findings will be integrated into this evaluation where relevant. See CCSF evaluation, conducted by Ipsos MORI, NPC and The Tavistock Institute, and published by The National Lottery Community Fund. Unless otherwise specified, findings in the Executive Summary refer to our primary data collection, so they exclude the CCSF funding stream. References to CCSF are explicitly labelled in the text. ↩

2. Including funding stream specific end of grant and evaluation reports. ↩

3. This figure includes some double counting of individuals; a few participants were both volunteers and staff members/service users. ↩

4. A Value for Money analysis of the CCSF fund was conducted by NPC and Ipsos MORI, as part of the wider CCSF programme evaluation. ↩

5. The theory of change is illustrated in full in the scoping report. ↩

6. This figure is based on the survey responses of grantholders with an approximate total funding received of £99 million. The total funding distributed to all organisations, not just those that responded to the survey was £328.4 million (excluding the hospices funding stream). ↩

7. Further information about funding streams can be found in Table 3.1 of the main report. ↩