Transcript Application processes

Assessment
 General appreciation of where assessment slots into
decision-making process, but praise and criticism for
individual assessors
 principle of assessment approved, but both successful /
unsuccessful applicants feel that interview and assessor’s
subjective interpretation of a project too influential in process
Praise
Criticism
 Objective manner, firmly enforced


no one but candidate to speak in
interview
no extraneous information
 Businesslike, professional attitude
 Clarifying at beginning of interview
assessor’s role in process, and areas for
discussion
 Offering reassurance, supportive
 Demonstrating understanding of project
aims and knowledge of specifics of
application
 Poor timekeeping, disorganised manner
 Apparent lack of understanding and/or
interest in project - admitting not having
read application
 Treating elements of application with
over-flippant attitude
 Concentrating only on financial aspects,
with no discussion of project aims
 Lack of opportunity to present existing
successes as supporting evidence for
bid
The good thing from our last one that we were refused on was that we actually got the feedback. We’d got feedback from the meeting,
we got feedback on the form, we actually knew why we’d failed and we also got the advice on the end of the letter to say, if you wanted, it
was about the budget, if you wanted to rejig the budget and re-submit, we’d be happy to receive that. So we were then in a position
where we could telephone the office and say, can you just remind us. The girl, I have to say, was very careful in what she said to us,
because she couldn’t advise us, but when I put to her what I thought were the problems, the potential problems with the budget, she
said, I can remember those, so she was giving me clear clues that that was the problem. So I think giving feedback like that was much,
much more useful and getting the encouragement to try again. Now, whether that’s given us false hope remains to be seen I guess, that’s
when we’ll get the answer.
Group 3
It needs to be individual feedback and it needs to be in detail. Even if it’s just a verbal conversation over the phone or something, but
you need to know the reasons, because there are also being times when... there’s common reasons why people’s applications fail. And
that’s not actually any use.
Group 4
Feedback
 Introduction of feedback correspondence for unsuccessful
applications welcomed as improvement to procedure
 Brevity of response, however, often thought to offer few
pointers for re-application
 longer, more detailed feedback considered necessary
 conversation about application with assessor considered ideal way
forward
 Belief that feedback to successful as well as unsuccessful
applicants would be of great benefit to NLCB applicant
‘community’
 multiple applicants hypothesise about reasons for success, often
wrongly, and would appreciate explanation for future benefit
I think looking at other charities, Comic Relief have a system where you put in an outline bid so you’re not investing
huge amounts of time putting everything down, then you find out whether you’re going to be invited to go further
than that and that is useful. You feel more cheesed off when you put in that amount of time, done 27 pages’ worth of
application and you get the no.
Group 2
It’s ridiculous that there’s no process whereby you can submit something fairly simple, which you’re then told this is
worth pursuing or not pursuing, which other organisations do, you know, they’ll take an initial idea and tell you. It
seems to me from other people I’ve seen here that they’re not finding out that the project fits the criteria until the very
end of the process, which is ridiculous.
Group 3
If you’ve got an outline of a scheme and we don’t know what criteria you were judging the validity of the scheme,
then it would just be something if it said well, if you persist with that scheme, then it won’t come within our criteria. It
would then stop a lot of people spending huge amounts of time, putting larger bids together, if they knew from the
outset that it wouldn’t comply. But if there was an element that wouldn’t comply, it would just be a waste. And I think
my concern is if you did the two-tier system, and I can see the benefits of it for sure, I do think it might raise your
hopes more. If somebody said, oh yes, your project fits the criteria, I think you’d actually think, oh, well, we’re
halfway there now, and that’s not going to be the case, is it?
Group 3
I think the flip side of the coin is that you would find an awful lot more people would just throw out ideas anyway and,
you know, throw out the bombs to see if anyone is interested because it just has to be worth a try. You know, it’s
only a couple of hours of my time, and you know 80% of them probably won’t get through. That’s effectively your
problem, not ours.
Group 4
On a small couple of sides of A4 preliminary application, perhaps you wouldn’t get a detailed - you would only get
knowledge of whether, okay, that’s a statutory responsibility, chuck it out. That’s all you would get. You would be
told, yes, it’s a good idea because of the broad themes, then go away and build it up to be knocked down again. And
Attitudes to two-tier applications
 Two tier application spontaneously suggested in all groups
 comparisons made with other funders who already operate system
 on reflection, disadvantages as well as advantages emerge
applicants
NLCB
advantages
disadvantages
 Would allow NLCB to save time
processing applications which fail to meet
criteria
 Freeing up assessors to devote more
attention to detail of applications which
do
 Many more initial applications may fail
criteria, since all the issues not
considered
 Increase in wasteful applications
expected - present system does act as
a filter for casual or speculative bids
 Would save time, resources, cost, and
stress levels
 Would indicate immediately whether or
not applicants on right track
 Disappointment if rejected at second
stage could be greater
 Full application thought to assist in
formulation of objectives and strategy these often product of application
materials, prompting unconsidered
issues
My first thoughts about the pack were very positive actually, because there was lots of information to guide you
through, it was very clearly written, there wasn’t waffle, it wasn’t complicated. Someone had obviously worked very
hard on plain English to get it across, and put it into neat little paragraphs, and the manner it was presented in was
very good.
Group 2
I like the approach of using the colour coding on the different pages. Maybe that they can build on that. If the
contents were just very initial paragraphs or something, before people get stuck into the detail - you’ll find yellow
pages are useful background information and help you make your application. The white ones are all essential to
you, read them all as well, you can interlink them.
Group 4
Design
Design of form and guidance notes thought
attractive
Easy to follow, well laid out
Creates suitable balance of seriousness
(considered appropriate) with sense of
accessibility and invitation
 informal sans serif font
 colours
We saw there was so much information you have to put in it and there wasn’t enough space to put it all in. It was like,
what do you put in and what do you leave out, because we felt like there wasn’t enough room to put in all the
information that needed to be put in and it was a case of deciphering what was more important. A guy at work ended
up kind of writing it in for me on the actual form.
Group 2
I’m dyslexic, and if I can’t use the PC I’m very, very insecure, so I couldn’t have handwritten on it, I mean when we did
the subsequent ones I actually cut and pasted them, so I was fine, but the original one I did I had to get one of the
Trustees actually to do the writing.
Group 2
We looked through it, and the first thing I noticed was how am I going to physically fit all the information into this. My
manager writes tiny, me personally I have bigger handwriting, so we decided it was him who actually physically wrote
it, we decided it was him just because he writes really small.
Group 2
I can’t type it in, because it’s in a book, therefore you have to do it in manuscript, and my writing’s awfully untidy. I
know there are other ways, and I’ve discovered better ways of doing it by typing it and then sticking it in, but I just
feel that the form takes away from the image of your project if you do that. Are there no plans to have it on disk? It
would be much easier to have this on disk and then just fill in your answer and print it.
Group 3
The other thing I think we found difficult and very time consuming is filling out the application form just because it’s
not supplied on disk. So, consequently we have to type it all out and then paste it down. It took us twelve hours just
to do that.
Group 4
My abiding memory of it is just scissors and bits of sticky paper. Is it not possible to have fixed headings on a read
only thing, on a basis that we can’t change, points, perhaps they are not used to maximum size, at the moment, you
get these size boxes and if you do come across a descriptive, you look at them and say, oh, they’re expecting me to
Space
 Space allocated to open-ended questions source of anxiety
to all applicants
 Size of box taken as indication of amount of information
required by NLCB, and this frequently at odds with applicants’
own expectations
 examples identified in analysis of application form
 Applicants adopt drastic measures in attempts to include all
information they regard as important
 print in vastly reduced fonts, cut and paste by hand
 enlisting scribe with tiniest handwriting in the organisation
Demand for electronic version of form as soon as possi
In the big one, we felt that they just asked questions over and over again at different times, they are repeating, and
I’m sorry, but we felt they were trying to catch you out in the big one, and you had to watch what you were doing...
very daunting, we felt that we were repeating and repeating ourselves.
Group 1
I actually think the reason it seems to repeat itself is that you’re actually trying to educate us within our projects, so
that we know it inside out. That’s the feeling I’ve got after filling it in for the third time. It’s such an educational
process, so that when the assessor does finally come out, you’ll know it inside out. That’s what I felt.
Group 4
Repetition
 Application form immediately described as repetitive, but
few specific examples of repetition actually given, and
none direct
 A4, A5, and C18; B3 and B9; C3 and C7; B3 and C22
 Perception of repetitiveness to form indicates that for
applicants, separation of project into discrete elements and
aspects(e.g. project management and project activity,
progress monitoring, assessment and strategy) an
unfamiliar and uncomfortable process
 Apparent repetitiveness leads applicants to ascribe covert
motives to NLCB
 repetitive questions deliberately included to test for
consistency throughout application
Sequentiality
 Application form questions generally considered to flow in
logical sequence, with specific exceptions
B3
Financial elements
 Some potential confusion between
organisation and project, not always
exclusive terms
 For those for whom project and
organisation are synonymous, B3 would
appear to be better positioned before
C4
 B7 - B8 considered (not by all) to be
better positioned with C18ff
 Particularly for those delegating
financial elements, that these are
separated (at
B7 - B8 and C19) thought potentially
confusing
B6
C8 - C13
 Regarded as more naturally positioned
in Section C, which is regarded as
central element of application
 These questions, unpopular in
themselves, thought to disrupt flow or
project description - open ended
questions interrupted by need for hard
statistical information
 Suggested position at end of Section C
Main grants: conclusions
 Concerns concentrated around broader issues of NLCB
funding criteria and problems in the assessment procedure,
rather than around application form and guidance notes
 specific changes to policy will improve ease of application far more
effectively than any change to materials
 two-tier system regarded as suitable step, but problems also attached
to this approach
 Within given context of NLCB policies and procedures,
application materials thought to perform well, with specific
exceptions, all correctable
 sequence of particular questions
 terminology used and required amount of detail suggested by box size
 clarification of certain ambiguous expressions, prone to incorrect
interpretation
It was difficult for us to look at different funders, because we’re not a registered charity and some funders just won’t
fund us because of that, and we’ve been looking - previously we hadn’t applied to the Lottery, because we’re kind of
parented by the NCH which is a Methodist organisation, so people were saying, oh, no, you really shouldn’t be
applying to the Lottery, but we were saying, hang on, we’re not an NCH project. I’m quite happy to apply to the Lottery
because considering that we’re faced with either that or not being in existence at all, that was how we came to apply.
Group 2
In terms of contacts, I was contacted at home one evening. I have three small children, and they contacted me at home
at 6 o’clock straight after tea-time, when I’m trying to get them ready for bed and for me, work is work and stays at
work. I really try to leave my work at work and not take it home with me, now I had my twelve month old on my legs
and I had my three year old trying to climb on my back, and I’m on the phone to someone from the Lottery Board, do
you know what I mean? It’s not, it wasn’t a time for me to put my professional hat on, I was at home and I was being, I
had my mother hat on, so for me, I think if it’s about work, call at work.
Group 2
For the first one, I had a very long phone call from the independent assessor one Sunday lunchtime, when I hadn’t got
the papers in front of me, to actually give some feedback onto, you know, what my bid was about and I just had to go
from memory. And I actually felt that went quite well, but we got turned down. Sunday lunchtime, it was. Not ideal.
Group 3
One thing I must bring up. I am slightly surprised by the need to give a home address and telephone number. Not that
I’m worried necessarily about confidentiality, it’s just I think I tend to sign off when I go, and I’m certainly not going to
be in the best frame of mind to really answer any questions about it.
Group 4
P1
Programme
 candidates whose applications could fall with
equal validity under either Poverty &
disadvantage or Community Involvement
wrestle with this choice, highlighting:
(i) their belief that some applications to
one programme stand a better
chance than another
(ii) their frustration at having to
categorise their project according to
NLCB’s own systems and procedures
 applicants within our sample claimed that an
application rejected for one programme
might be approved for the other
 for some applicants, this and C4 can be the
last parts of the form to be completed
Home contact
 contact at home resented even more
strongly than for Awards for All - all contact
seen with NLCB as crucial to bid’s chances
and being contacted at home, potentially on
the hoof, thought to be unfair
P2 - P3
 No problems with these pages
 All organisations able to identify
appropriate personnel for this section
with no difficulty
I think A4 and A5... I think it’s a bit like a court case, they shouldn’t tell you your convictions. You know, before the case has been tried.
It should be more that this document stands on its own. And only at a later date should they be saying, well, we’ve given them a grant
already, which they must be able to draw from a computer somehow or other. So I think A4 shouldn’t be there, and the bit just under the
box I’m not sure about either, it’s rather a different question to A4. And A5 I definitely don’t think should be asked. If this is something
which is being evaluated, the person who evaluates should go in with a completely open mind.
Group 3
P4
Other applications - A4 & A5
 medium to large sized organisations may have
made several applications to NLCB and other
Lottery distribution bodies, so require more space project description box cramped
 status and interpretation of project can be difficult
for medium-sized bodies to evaluate, since project
is often taken to mean both:
(i) the entire organisation, if NLCB funding is
the source of funds for the project team
(ii) the specific activity funded within the
larger organisation by NLCB if team
already existing beforehand
the issue of project continuation or development
can therefore be confused - further clarification,
with precise definitions, would be welcomed
 applicants often made anxious by this section,
because notes do not fully explain why this
information is required - for those reapplying for a
previously rejected project, speculation arises that
their new bid will not be judged on its own merits,
but negative inferences drawn from the failure of
the first
There’s no space at B3, I mean they acknowledge you can put extra sheets in, the sheets go at the back and one thing
we were told when we rang Leeds to try and make it easier for people that are going to read it, now if you need
something as large as that why can’t you have this as a blank space.
Group 2
P5
B1
 unlike Awards for All, organisations generally more
familiar with formal / semi-formal structures and
management, and have constitutions in place
 sub-groups (e.g. a Brownie pack) of larger
organisations, however, can remain unsure as to
whether they are expected to supply their own
constitution or that of the umbrella organisation - in
one example, an umbrella organisation’s
constitution caused an application to fail, and a new
one had then to be devised by the subgroup
B3
 as first question which requires description,
applicants here keen to demonstrate why their
organisation is deserving of funding - small space
considered inadequate to do justice to their
organisation
Another one I had a slight thing about was B4. Asking about the people involved in your organisation. Because really I think it’s totally
ludicrous really. Many others must be. Welsh speakers, or Welsh males, female, disabled, non-disabled, under 26, over 26, white,
Chinese, African, Bangladeshi. I mean, what a nonsense, isn’t it, really. I mean why don’t you just say, please describe the staff that you
employ, because we are intelligent people and we can actually answer. This is highly patronising in my view.
Group 4
P6
B4
 however professedly liberal-minded applicants
are, resentment caused by these questions
 inflames residual suspicion - derived from media
coverage of unusual cases - that NLCB assesses
applications on basis of politically correct agenda
 slightly racist undertone evident in reaction to B4 assumption that ethnic minority representation
will automatically lead to NLCB regarding
application more favourably
P7
B5
 can be confusing for medium to larger
organisations, running many simultaneous but
separate projects - may be many staff in the
organisation uninvolved with the specific project in
question, and applicants uncertain whom to include
 further clarification advised in notes
 lack of definition of volunteer can cause problems
(regular, occasional, ad hoc) - guidance welcomed
B6
 identified as good example of where notes give
valuable guidance and reassurance, especially for
those without formal qualifications in project
management
 space, however, considered too small to adequately
describe management committee’s credentials
 some uncertainty as to whether answer requires
individual, or collective, experience
P8
B8
 this element of application usually deputised to
Treasurer or financial head, and generally timeconsuming to complete
 small, inexperienced organisations generally find
particularly difficult, since financial records
generally less organised / structured
 appreciated by all, however, as totally necessary
procedure, and source of no resentment - regarded
as standard information to be provided for
funding application
We looked at the different... to actually show that our area was in an area of disadvantage and deprivation, it’s the
area where the main focus of the bid was going, why are you looking after these young people as against any other
young people, so of course we felt that we had to prove effectively that we weren’t just saying it, it comes back to
writing from the heart, we could have just said, and this is truthful, this is a highly deprived and disadvantaged
area, full stop. But you can’t just say, we felt that anybody could just say that, you have to prove it.
Group 2
Gosh, B9, this was hard. I think it was very easy to misunderstand the question. I know we did that because we
gave the same answer as I think, as C3, whereas actually the explanation is - it’s actually the organisation it’s
talking about here, not the project.
Group 3
Without the guiding notes we really would have been stuck at B9. It would never have occurred to me to have put
access to the building or anything, simply because our clients never come to see us.
Group 3
Question B9 we thought quite inappropriate really. I remember it. Are the people on your management committee
so and so. If you’re looking for disabilities with children, or people with mental health problems, it’s quite difficult
to actually involve them within it, and I thought that was quite inappropriate for many organisations. We have two
users on our Committee, and we have to be so careful with them, really treat them with kid gloves, but we can’t
really expect them to make any major decisions because it would just upset them too much. So I think we had to
explain we’re a user-led organisation and not that this is the way we went forward, fill in our aims and objectives
and our mission statement as well, so - we found it difficult.
Group 5
The community these days, it depends upon your client. In the case of physically disabled people, which is our
main concern, they don’t like to be thought of as a community, in fact it’s the last thing they want to be. They want
to be thought of as part and parcel of the community like everyone else. But this is suggesting that there is some
special community, like in some way disabled or whatever.
Group 4
P9
B9
 first area of real conceptual difficulty - much
confusion and misinterpretation, despite guiding
notes
 ambiguously phrased - question can be
interpreted as
‘how do you make sure your project reflects the
needs of the overall community?’
or
‘how do you make sure that your project
managers are in tune with your client group?’
and applicants remain unsure which question
they are being expected to answer
 confusion derives from references in notes to
client group, community, and wider
community - applicants are left uncertain as to
which of these definitions they should adopt in
answering the question
 uncertainty as to whether organisation refers
specifically to management committee or to
project itself - notes do not elucidate
One of the most daunting aspects of the main application was providing the question, what kind of demand we have
for the services, and we only had a sort of very small snap shot or a very small part of the community, so using that
as an indication and various bits of other information which the social work department resources supplied us with,
population, and age groups within the population and people living alone, and so on, we were able to make an
estimate, but an estimate wasn’t good enough, we have to have evidence of demand and how many people would
actually do this and that, and that was the difficult thing.
Group 1
P10
C2
 surprise that no guidance for this question,
regarded as one of the most pivotal in the
application
 applicants, particularly if inexperienced, left with
very little idea of what level and amount of
information required here
 identified as an example of where space
provided itself produces anxiety and secondguessing: applicants uncertain whether they will
be penalised for not filling the space, others
worry about including extra sheets
C3
 open to frequent misinterpretation, and potential
for confusion in notes
 applicants divided between those interpreting
need as client group need (in terms of benefits to
clients not being provided elsewhere) and
community need (in terms of the overall benefits
to wider society)
 the disadvantage of some client groups (e.g. blind
people) are considered obvious, and some
resentment produced at seemingly being required
to state the obvious
I didn’t understand why we had to fill this in. Going back to your thing about the two separate sheets inside, I mean it’s
either one or the other for both applications, why is there a page for community involvement and a page for poverty and
disadvantage? Similarly elsewhere in the form I mean where it’s quite clear that certain things fit into the poverty and
disadvantage application better than they do into the community involvement, and for the sake of making this
application form a little bit bigger, it would certainly make it easier.
Group 2
With C4, it’s only the project criteria, and then you have the make the rest of your whole application fit that one criteria.
When you’re talking about what others say, what benefits a community, a cross county for a neighbourhood watch set
up everywhere, it says, does the project help people work together for the benefit of the community, so yes, the project
did, then perhaps people would become more involved in the community. The project supplies support for all of the
voluntary organisations. The voluntary and community centre and it would have done that as well. And yet to have to try
and parcel the whole thing up into just one of these criteria, when in fact with an awful lot of community involvement
programmes, it runs across a whole lot of them. I really have difficulty understanding that. That any community
programme at all can probably fit neatly into one of those boxes.
Group 3
I’m trying to find some safe middle ground, because I don’t want to misrepresent my project that we’ve got on offer, but
I do want to get it past the Lottery and get the funding for it, because of how important it is.
Group 3
It was actually this one which I in particular found difficult, fitting in the criteria, because my project was 50/50,
completely 50/50, so I just left it blank and told them to make their mind up, which is what they did. I had to.
Group 5
In our case this time it was quite obvious where it should go - it was obviously for the community, but for the other one
we did, the poverty, that could easily have fitted into either. But we thought we’d already tried the community, so we’d
try the poverty. If you’re applying for the poverty programme, you obviously just emphasise the poverty more, but I
could easily have written it for the community, and emphasised the community more. It would have made little
difference I think.
P11
C4 - most contentious question in
the application, regarded as
the most important
 applicants all believe their project conforms to
NLCB’s funding criteria, but their own
judgements prone to extreme subjectivity
 applicants for existing projects (usually from
established organisations) conscious of
Procrustean measures to shoehorn propositions
into criteria, to the point where distorted beyond
recognition - and much resentment of the fact
 identifying a single project criterion often a
source of anxiety, since this thought to restrict the
opportunity to describe a project to its fullest
 applicants can feel they have been forced to
misrepresent their project - considered unfair
 some projects fulfil more than one criterion with
equal appropriateness, and applicants secondguess which may improve the application’s
chances
 C4 considered intellectually and conceptually
challenging, but difficulty attributed to the
overall concept of NLCB criteria, not to
ambiguous questioning or unhelpful notes
P12
C5
 differing reactions amongst applicants for
capital and revenue funding
 capital applicants unsure how to complete Years
2 and 3, other than to duplicate plans - and
expect to be penalised for this
 applicants for larger revenue projects appreciate
questioning - regarded as prompting
rationalisation of a three-year strategy for a
project, taking project beyond initial conception
into further development and expansion
 small to medium sized organisations find C5
particularly challenging - question demands
goal-oriented rather than task-oriented
perspective, which can represent important
cultural shift into unfamiliar territory
 notes would benefit from including reassurance
for applicants for capital projects, and advice for
small to medium sized organisations with less
experience of strategic planning
P13
C6
 notes here regarded as especially useful questions outlined in guidance give valued
framework for response
C7
 for certain applicants, C7 represents a grey
area, thus extremely difficult to complete e.g. Neighbourhood Watch schemes, hospices
 statutory status can be ambiguous - many
projects receive partial support from local
authorities and regarded as quasi-statutory,
and applicants unsure how to treat these
within the context of their response
 existing organisations may already have
strong / formal connections with statutory
services, and can be uncertain as to their own
status
 distinguishing the benefits of a project in this
project can be felt as an invitation to
demonstrate inadequacies of statutory
provision - a source of discomfort
P14
C8
 as with Awards for All, beneficiaries considered
near impossible to quantify accurately for most
project types
 generally, resistance to quantifying of
beneficiaries, since degrees of need differ
amongst client groups - benefits to different
groups thought to be impossible to enumerate on
consistent axis
 similarly, some organisations / projects thought
to be more influential and significant than others
 applicants would welcome opportunity to
elaborate on benefits and relationships with
other organisations, as well as supplying
numbers
C9, C9b
 little problem completing, although (despite
notes) rationale not entirely clear
 belief that some offices are more or less generous
- much speculation as to levels of subscription
across regions, and as to varying agenda followed
by different awarding offices
It’s this question, why do they want to know socio-economic groupings and all the rest of it, and whether they’re single
parents or not? Is that purely for statistics or does that swing some kind of bias in terms of whether or not an
application is successful or not?
Group 1
If that’s there for their statistical purposes, then it should be on a separate equal opportunities form at the back, that
they can then use for their own monitoring purposes, and not pointing up here, because it worries people. They think
you’re going to hit the criteria. I could easily have ticked eleven of these boxes for the people we work with.
Group 2
I sort of ticked that and thought, if you’re white, middle-class, ordinary people, you know, you don’t stand a chance of
getting Lottery money. You know, it’s really so frustrating. Why don’t they put it at the end or something, but being
stuck right in the middle of the form, you can’t help but feel it has some significance. I think this is one of the problems
that we might be coming to later on. I also feel that we fall between two stools in a lot of ways, because we cover a
broad range of client groups. The Lottery only seemed to want us to go for one specific client group.
Group 3
Well, we’ve all seen it. Surely when we’ve all read the newspapers and see where the bids have gone, you know, if
you’re one of the minority groups, if you’re ethnic minority or gay or lesbian or whatever, that’s where you see a lot of
the money always going to... now that’s laudable of course, but that’s not the only sort of organisation that’s needing
money. I think we can all think of examples of where monies has gone where you thought, why?
Group 3
There is one area where it said you could tick a box for which group would actually benefit from your grant, and it was
like a trick question, you could actually tick three groups. And we could actually tick every one, and I thought if I ticked
the wrong three - I thought that was a bit of a trick question.
Group 4
I found this quite offensive actually. People with mental health actually have no boundaries, it’s not a matter of being
green, white, red.
P16
C10
 inflexible ranges - applicants would prefer openended question, since restriction to given age
bands may lead to misrepresentation of client
group
C11
 as with Awards for All, produces strong
misgivings
 likewise, feeds suspicions of NLCB as operating
to political agenda
C12
 strongly disliked, across entire sample
 selecting maximum of three groups depicts
limited spectrum of need, and applicants for
wide-ranging projects (especially Community
involvement applications) feel strongly that they
cannot adequately convey the breadth and
variety of their client group
 applicants would welcome opportunity to
elaborate description - larger box required
Some other people who are involved in our services, for example, would have much too much in their head to be in a
focus group, so the focus group is actually an external group what’s not involved with the service. The young people
that we work with tell us that that’s what we’re employed for, they don’t want to be involved in the Steering Group
and stuff like that, that’s what we’re there for, they say, they say we’re there to do all the boring, crappy bits they
don’t actually want to do.
Group 2
If we do individual pieces of work, like we’re running a big conference, then young people are involved in the focus of
that conference is going to be, who’s going to run it, who’s going to organise which bits, but in terms of the overall
management of the project they don’t actually want to be involved in that.
Group 2
Homeless people, and anyone will tell you this - there are all sorts of reasons why people are homeless, but one of
their common denominators is as soon as you house them they lose interest in their situation almost immediately.
Group 3
P17
C10
 for many project types, especially those whose
beneficiaries are members of socially excluded
groups (severely disabled, mentally ill,
homeless) this question regarded as impossible
to complete
 note indicating that explanation required
unfriendly - does not alleviate applicants’
anxiety
 examples in guiding note may be helpful
I think the important thing is... I think you’ve got to measure somehow, some kind of feedback and I can actually see exactly why
they’re asking those questions. It might seem to us a bit tricky, and I suspect you can never really measure the fact, but I can see why
you should have some sort of indicators. I think what they’re driving at is that they’re trying to get a bit of feedback, ensuring that
you’re using these resources to feed back.
Group 3
P18
C15
 notes offer welcome pointers, provide useful
framework for response
C16
 notes thought helpful not just for purposes
application, but also as prompt to
consideration of previously unconsidered
aspects of project design, e.g. feedback,
monitoring of progress - encourages
continuous assessment to be allocated
specific role within project strategy
P19
C17
 notes again act as valuable prompt to
unconsidered aspects, especially for less
experienced project managers
C18
 for large organisations and projects, inadequate
space
 difficult for medium to large organisations,
constantly applying for project funding, to
complete - future intentions (intend to apply) not
always finalised at time of application
 complex relationships between multi-projects in
larger organisations also cause some problems
 for smaller to medium sized organisations,
similar misgivings as for Awards for All
applicants - second guessing as to effect
responses here may exercise on overall NLCB
decision
C19, on the cash flow, could we have some extra lines please on there. Where we do the housekeeping, some extra lines would be nice.
Group 4
P20
C19
 for all organisations, of whatever size, level of
experience or stage of development, calculation
of costs most time-consuming and expensive
element of form to complete
 demands many resources in terms of research,
analysis, and budgeting
 reluctance to include speculative costs, but some
elements necessarily estimated - especially if
changes envisaged throughout course of project
(e.g. recruitment of staff as project expands,
relocation to new premises), and this a source of
anxiety
 large organisations with much application
experience familiar with detail required, but
smaller organisations generally do not have
information to hand
 inflation costs can be forgotten - could be more
prominently flagged in guidance notes
 more space required for other category
P20
C19 continued
 business plans considered challenging but
worthwhile by all completing
 certain applicant types - generally those
initiating new projects and applying for
capital, rather than revenue, funding - seeking
amount below £200k would welcome
opportunity to include business plan, in order
to:
 clarify own financial strategy
 demonstrate to NLCB financial credibility and
project management skills
C20
 for organisations already employing staff who
will spend only a proportion of their working
time engaged in the project applied for, may be
deceptively difficult
P21
Information about posts
 no reported problems
When you’re applying on the poverty programme, there are questions on volunteering, which is really associated with the
community programme. And what do you do? You have to answer it, you can’t just leave it blank, because they don’t like that,
they said at the workshops they don’t like people leaving any blanks. So you just have to put a volunteer in,
even if you don’t want one. It’s just a bit daft really.
Group 4
P23
C21
 as with Awards for All, status and definition of
volunteers requires some clarification permanent or ad hoc
C23
 notes provide useful guidance, providing pro
forma for response
We felt that this was a bit of double jeopardy here. We were hoping that, if by having three years’ Lottery funding we could get going
and we could then provide that service and also provide ourselves with statistics that it was a viable service, and then we could take it to
perhaps more statutory agencies and get extra funding from there. But if you put that in there, the question’s going to come back from
the Lotteries group, well, why don’t you go to statutory agencies now and get funding for it.
Group 3
We used the exit strategy and said we would be winding down the project anyway towards the volunteers. It was heading towards the
volunteers taking over and that we would actually assist them and we said if it didn’t head towards that then the project would cease.
The trouble then is, if in three years time you decide you do actually want more funding from them, having said you were going to wind
it down like that, what do you do?
Group 4
One question I found really daunting when I was filling this in, which is at the end now. How are you going to wind down the project
when the grant finishes? Now, you know if you have a salary in your grant, what do you say? I just didn’t know what they wanted to
hear at that point. Obviously if you have a salary then whoever is doing the job like this is probably going to want to continue when the
grant finishes, but you can’t assume that they’re going to just carry on funding it. What do you say? The whole project’s going to finish
and that’s it? Or that we’re desperately searching for more funding, because we haven’t thought ahead five years. I really didn’t know
what they wanted to hear, so I just left that one very brief.
Group 4
P24
C24
 difficult to complete for all applicants, whether
project expected to continue or end after threeyear period
 questions thought to require too much foresight
on part of applicant
 development of exit strategy before project has
even begun strikes applicants as tall order
 principal grievance that projects often thought to
develop in organic and unpredictable ways (e.g.
a project expected to have a logical end
developing beyond its original objectives and
then wishing to continue), and to establish
intentions in initial stages thought to impose
restrictions on project’s potential future
direction
P25 - P28
 No problems with these pages
 Checklist well received