Research and analysis

Tampon Tax Fund evaluation: appendices

Published 6 June 2023

Appendix 1: Summary of TTF logic model

1.1 Introduction

This appendix provides a summary of the TTF logic model. The TTF logic model was developed by Kantar Public in collaboration with DCMS as part of the TTF evaluation scoping phase. The logic model provides the underpinning theory and framework for the evaluation design.

1.2 About logic models

A logic model illustrates and describes how and why a programme is expected to achieve its specified outcomes and impacts. Key components are mapped out onto a chain of results, and the interactions or logic between components are explored.

A logic model can guide and inform the scope and remit of an evaluation, for example by identifying programme activities, deliverables, outcomes and impacts to provide the foundations of an evaluation framework and plan. For this reason, developing a logic model for TTF was a key deliverable for this scoping phase. The logic model has directly informed the design and development of the proposed TTF evaluation.

1.3 TTF logic model development

Kantar Public used the insights collected in the evaluation scoping phase to develop a logic model. Once created, a workshop with stakeholders was held to work through each element of the logic model and to agree on the different design options and preferred design approach.

1.4 TTF logic model overview

The logic model has been developed to understand the approach taken by TTF to meet its core aim(s) and intended impacts. The key components of the logic model are as follows:

1. Introduction: the overarching purpose, remit and underpinning contextual factors that have informed the overall design of the Fund

2. Fund delivery models: the models by which the funding has been distributed to organisations to reach and benefit end beneficiaries (women and girls)

3. Interventions: the types or categories of activity and intervention(s) that Fund recipients delivered in order to support women and girls

4. Project defined outcomes and impacts: the specific outcomes and impacts that individual projects are seeking to achieve, as defined by Fund recipients themselves. At a Fund level, no specific outcomes were mandated to Fund recipients

5. Fund impact: the overarching impacts that the Fund is aiming to achieve

1.5 Introductory component of the TTF logic model

The first section of the logic model presents the key contexts framing and underpinning TTF. These factors are presented as the first element of the logic model because they inform the shape and design of TTF and are integral context for the proceeding elements.

Key to this origin and purpose was the intention to keep the TTF focus areas and remit broad, allowing organisations in the not-for-profit and community sectors to identify the key issues and challenges to be addressed. Core themes were identified for each year of Fund delivery with the intention of ensuring a diversity of organisations and issues being funded, as well as to address ministerial priorities at the time. The themes addressed by TTF over the course of its delivery were:

• violence against women and girls

• general theme

• mental health and wellbeing

• young women’s mental health

• rough sleeping and homelessness

• music

The eligibility criteria specified that bid applications must come from registered charities, and benevolent and philanthropic organisations, with proposed activity focusing on women and girls (notably, organisations did not have to be specialists in the women’s and girls’ sector, but were eligible for funding as long as their proposed activity benefited women and girls). Organisations were required to apply for funding valuing at least £350,000 and with a bid not exceeding 50% of the organisation’s income. This value varied across years of delivery; there were initially no minimum criteria, then there was a £1 million minimum, which was then changed to £350,000 in the 2021/2022 round of funding.

1.6 Fund delivery models

The following four funding models were identified.

Model 1: An intervention delivered that is accessed directly by the end beneficiary. Here, one organisation or a partnership of organisations puts the funding towards providing frontline and direct support to women and girls.

Model 2: The delivery of intermediary capacity building activities that subsequently support end beneficiaries. Here, one organisation, or a partnership of organisations, puts the funding towards capacity building activities such as training for professionals, or towards wider capacity building activities such as shared learning spaces.

Model 3: Funding is given to an intermediary grant-maker, which delivers an intervention that is accessed directly by the end beneficiary. Here, an intermediary organisation receives TTF funding and then delivers their own tender process to provide funding to a wider set of organisations. These onward grant recipients then put the funding towards providing frontline support to women and girls.

Model 4: Funding is given to an intermediary grant-maker, which delivers intermediary capacity building activities that subsequently support end beneficiaries. Here, an intermediary organisation receives TTF funding, and then delivers their own grant-making process to provide funding to a wider set of organisations. These onward grant recipients then put the funding towards capacity building activities.

1.7 TTF interventions

The TTF interventions can be grouped into seven main types. The first three are identified as activities that can form the ‘intermediary’ stages of the delivery models outlined above: activities that are not delivered directly to women and girls, but which ultimately provide them with benefits. These are:

1. Onward grant-making: Funding received is redistributed as smaller grants to wider organisations, often with the same or more focused aims to TTF and with a focus on reaching small and medium-sized community organisations without direct TTF access. Onward grant-making will always lead into a wider set of interventions that fall into one of the six other category types outlined below.

2. Training: Training is provided to professionals and organisations, or people with lived experience, to better equip them to support women and girls. Training provided to women and girls with lived experience is multi-purpose and may also be seen as an intervention that provides frontline support and education opportunities to end beneficiaries.

3. Capacity building: Consultancy and support is provided to an organisation to improve practices that will ensure better support is provided to women and girls. These interventions may include activities such as shared learning spaces and networks, support for implementing best practice, reviewing or rolling out organisational policy, provision of digital skills, etc.

The remaining four intervention types focus on the delivery of frontline support to end beneficiaries (women and girls). These are:

4. Signposting and awareness raising: Signposting is provided to women and girls to raise awareness and improve access to support services. This type of intervention seeks to strengthen support pathways and increase access to support, as well as to enable joined-up working.

5. Frontline services: Support and services are provided to women and girls. Examples of frontline services include the provision of one-to-one or group support, peer/community support, coaching/mentoring, housing and accommodation, etc.

6. Education: Provision of education and/or training to support women and girls’ knowledge and skills development, for example language skills.

7. Resource equipment and technology: The provision of physical or digital equipment, tools or resources used in the delivery of support for women and girls. Examples of this could be providing bikes, sanitary products, online services, educational resources or digital content (including apps).

These first three intervention types may support the delivery of the remaining four intervention types, although the latter can also be delivered independently. Fund recipients may deliver just one, or multiple, intervention types within their funded project.

1.8 Project defined outcomes and impacts

Outcomes and impacts have been identified across three levels: sector, organisational and individual. Outcomes and impact also cut across short-term outcomes, long-term outcomes and project impacts, where:

• short-term outcomes are defined as measurable outcomes directly attributed to intervention delivery and which are felt or experienced immediately/soon after the intervention is accessed or delivered

• long-term outcomes are measurable outcomes directly attributed to intervention delivery that are felt or experienced in the long term after the intervention is accessed or delivered – for example, outcomes you would expect to see/feel/experience in the months after the intervention has ended)

Project impacts, in this context, are higher level goals that the project is expected to contribute towards, but which cannot be directly attributed to intervention delivery.

The first component is sector level, whereby outcomes and impacts are expected in the voluntary and community sector (VCS) overall. The main short-term outcome at the sector level is improved sector partnership and organisational linking. In the longer term, this leads to an outcome of improved sector knowledge and increased assets, which projects expect to have an impact on the sector overall by supporting a shift in sector responses towards preventative work.

The next component is the organisational level, where TTF projects create outcomes and impacts for the funded organisations and their delivery partners. Projects identified two common short-term outcomes at the organisational level: improved ability/skill to support women in need and improved access to resources, and guidance and shared learning (also an individual level outcome – see below). These short-term outcomes do not lead to any organisational outcomes or impact but support longer-term sector-level outcomes and impact by improving sector knowledge and assets. Notably, some outcomes and impacts sit across multiple levels.

The final component is the individual level, which involves outcomes that impact directly on individuals and their lives, with a specific focus on the end beneficiaries: women and girls.

A common short-term outcome for individuals was improved access to resources, guidance and shared learning (also an organisational-level outcome – see above), which leads to a longer-term outcome of improved physical and mental health management for women and girls.

A second common short-term outcome was improved access to quality support for women and girls in need, which projects expect to lead to increased help-seeking and improved confidence in the longer term. These outcomes are expected, in some cases, to be a result of organisational and/or sector-level outcomes; for example, improved skill in organisations would support improved access to quality support for women and girls.

Ultimately, projects focused on the individual level expect these outcomes to create two potential individual level impacts: a reduced risk or experience of violence and harm, and/or women and girls being empowered to act as their own agents.

1.9 Fund impact

Ultimately, these project-level outcomes and impacts are expected to help TTF achieve broad, overarching impacts. Three core impacts have been identified by stakeholders and projects, focusing on impact for end beneficiaries (women and girls) and at the sector level. These are as follows.

1. TTF intends to have a positive impact on the lives of women and girls, especially those facing disadvantage and harm.

2. TTF intends to have a positive impact on the types of initiative available to women and girls, through a strengthened offer of locally relevant initiatives provided by specialist and community organisations.

3. TTF intends to create a lasting impact on the VCS through the provision of sustainable and/or ‘snowball’ interventions (new interventions that emerge from, or are inspired by, the original funded activities), increased sector resources and knowledge, and improved sector networks.

Appendix 2: Findings from the review and synthesis of applications for TFF funding, project monitoring data and reported evaluation evidence

2.1 Introduction

This appendix sets out the findings of the review of the documentation from successful applications for TTF funding, project monitoring forms and End of Grant reports. The full review used data from all 137 successful project applications and built on the initial review of 33 successful applications (all 14 from the 2021/2022 cohort and a sample of 19 from 2016 to 2020). The review did not include any analysis of data from unsuccessful applications, so comparisons between successful and unsuccessful applications was not possible. The analysis in this section therefore only refers to successful applications, and these are referred to interchangeably as ‘applications’ or ‘successful applications’.

The review also considered the self-reported data submitted in End of Grant project reports. In some areas (for example, related to outcomes and impacts), data from both sources was incomplete and/or of varying quality, type and format. Projects funded in 2020/2021 and 2021/2022 did not provide any information on final outputs, outcomes or impacts as their projects were ongoing. These factors limit the analysis, and findings are not intended to be generalisable to the Fund as a whole.

2.2 Methodology

The objectives of the review were to understand the scope of TTF and its funded projects; combinations of delivery models used; combinations of intervention categories proposed; project monitoring and evaluation plans; proposed and reported outcomes and impacts; and lessons learned.

A rapid review of 14 project applications was used to develop an analytical framework, which captured information about the applications (location, funded amount, key contacts, details of additional funding, delivery timeline, activities); the proposed interventions (including budget, beneficiaries, mode of delivery, new or existing interventions and expected numbers); plans for monitoring and evaluation; and intended and reported outcomes and impacts. The framework was tested and a review of 33 applications conducted at the evaluation design stage to inform the development of a TTF logic model for the evaluation. The full application review in the mainstage evaluation built on this analysis, using data from all 137 successful applications. Project documents (including End of Grant reports) were reviewed and the framework populated before key findings were synthesised using the framework.

The data and analysis in this appendix relate to direct TTF grantees only.

2.3 Application review findings

The following sections present the findings of the application review, covering key information on the funded organisations and the interventions they delivered, the findings on TTF delivery models and intervention categories developed as part of the TTF logic model, and the expected and reported project outcomes/impacts.

2.3.1 Funded organisations

All 137 successful applications were from not-for-profit organisations or consortia, as intended in the TFF selection criteria. Organisations varied in size from small, locally focused or specialist to larger national organisations, with a wide range of specialisms and areas of focus (Table 1) below.

Table 1: Specialisms of funded organisations

Specialisms of funded organisations

Homelessness; mental health; violence against women and girls (and addressing trauma); working with minority communities and groups (such as migrant and refugee women and girls, and women and girls with lived experience of the criminal justice system); and participation in sport; financial and money advice; care and the caring community; modern slavery; gambling; pregnancy, maternal health and maternity support, including for miscarriages; disability; and education, employment and skills, including improving literacy skills

The geographic areas covered by the applications funded included all areas of the UK (Table 2). Over a quarter of all applications focused on very local issues and/or coverage.

Table 2: Percentage of applications covering different geographic areas

Whole of UK	Combination of two or three countries	England only	Scotland only	Wales only	Northern Ireland only
20%	12%	50%	10%	4%	4%

The value of successful applications ranged from £16,500 (to a local organisation providing sporting opportunities for those with disabilities) to £3,545,000 (to a network of community foundations to deliver onward grants at a local level). The distribution of proposed spend is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Successful applications by value

Value (GBP£)	Percent of applications
Up to £50,000	4.35%
£50,000 to £99,999	13.77%
£100,000 to £249,999	25.36%
£250,000 to £499,999	17.39%
£500,000 to £999,999	7.25%
£1,000,000 to £1,999,999	26.09%
£2,000,000 and over	5.07%

All seven applications with values over £2 million focused on providing onward grants to other organisations.

The seven applications of this size came from just five organisations and had a total value of £19,473,662, or 22.5% of the total TTF funding.

Three of these five organisations had multiple other successful applications: one organisation had four separate applications (a total funding of £8,576,175), and the other two organisations had two successful applications each (the total funding to these two organisations was £6,954,000 and £3,106,855 respectively).

Through their eight successful applications, between them these three organisations received over 21% of the total TTF funding.

While this shows that a significant proportion of the total TTF funding was awarded to a few organisations as direct grantees, it was then provided to a large number of other organisations as onward grantees (while the exact number of onward grantees is difficult to establish from the review of applications, monitoring data and End of Grant reports, a public data analysis shows 1,230 organisations received onward grants).

The largest number of successful applications had budgets ranging between £1 million and £2 million and did not involve onward grants. These had the greatest number of successful applications (36 applications, or 26%) and larger budgets, and accounted for over 50% of all funding.

Overall, almost 75% of TTF funding went to the 31% of successful applications with budgets of over £1 million.

The 25% of successful applications with values between £100,000 and £250,000 (the second largest number of applications) received 6.6% of total TTF funding (or £5,750,025).

Successful applications with budgets under £100,000 (18% of successful applications) received around 2% of total TTF funding (about £1.73 million).

Applications proposed to address a wide range of issues, summarised in Table 3.

Table 3: Issues addressed in applications

More common issues addressed in applications

Less common issues addressed in applications

Lack of access to services for women and girls, including the need for investment in equipment and resources to support service delivery Lack of trauma-informed approaches in services, including the need for support for Black and minority groups, women and girls with disabilities, refugees and others experiencing violence or abuse Lack of funding to support women and girls affected by abuse and violence Limiting skills, confidence and knowledge of frontline staff to work across issues like domestic violence

Lack of support for women during pregnancy, including miscarriage and overall maternity care Low levels of help-seeking among women affected by problem gambling Lack of adequate housing services, e.g. female offenders and victims of modern-day slavery Low levels of access to education and skills for women and girls in areas of high deprivation Absence of clear support pathways for those who have experienced intimate image abuse Lack of support for carers, such as those caring for young women and girls with eating disorders Lack of equipment/resources for audiences to address specific issues, such as free sanitary products to address period poverty

2.3.2 Delivery models

In the scoping phase, Kantar Public identified four models through which TTF funding was delivered to reach and directly benefit women and girls. These are summarised in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Fund delivery models

Model	1	2	3	4
Summary	Organisations or partnerships directly provide frontline services and support to women and girls	Organisations or partnerships provide capacity building activities to improve intervention quality	Organisations act as intermediary grant-makers and onward fund delivery bodies to deliver activities	Organisations act as intermediary grant-makers and onward fund capacity building activities to improve service quality
Percentage of awards	41%	45%	9%	14%

Successful applications using one delivery model were distributed across all application values, although applications using model 1 were more likely to be of lower value (< £500,000) compared to model 4 (> £1 million).

Figure 3: Distribution of applications using single delivery models by application value

Percentage of applications

Value (GBP£)	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4
Up to £50,000	4.17%	0.00%	0.83%	0.00%
£50,000 to £99,999	10.00%	5.00%	0.83%	0.00%
£100,000 to £249,999	13.33%	12.50%	1.67%	0.00%
£250,000 to £499,999	6.67%	6.67%	0.83%	0.83%
£500,000 to £999,999	1.67%	3.33%	0.00%	2.50%
£1,000,000 to £1,999,999	5.00%	12.50%	1.67%	5.83%
£2,000,000 and over	0.00%	0.00%	2.50%	1.67%

Most applications (around 87%) only involved one delivery model. However, the four models were not exclusive, and the remaining 13% of applications involved various combinations of two models within their overall approach. No successful applications involved combinations of three or four models.

Of the applications using two models, 50% involved combining models 1 and 2 and 31% involved combining models 2 and 4. Model 2 (capacity building of other organisations) was used in combination with another model in over 87% of the successful applications using multiple delivery models. No successful applications combined model 1 with either model 3 or model 4.

Figure 4: Delivery model combinations used in successful applications

Combinations of bid delivery models	Models 1 and 2	Models 1 and 3	Models 1 and 4	Models 2 and 3	Models 2 and 4	Models 3 and 4
Percentage of applications	50.00%	0.00%	0.00%	6.25%	31.25%	12.50%

2.3.3 Intervention categories

Within the four delivery models, the TTF logic model included seven categories of intervention that Fund recipients delivered to support women and girls.

Onward grant-making: Funding received is redistributed as smaller grants to other organisations, aligned with the themes of TTF and with a focus on reaching small and medium-sized community organisations without direct TTF access. Onward grant-making leads onto a wider set of interventions falling into one of the six other categories outlined below.

Frontline services: Support and services are provided to women and girls, such as providing one-to-one or group support, peer/community support, coaching/mentoring, accommodation, etc.

Capacity building: Support is provided to an organisation to improve practices and ensure improved support for women and girls, such as shared learning and networks, support for implementing best practice, revising organisational policy and digital skills provision.

Training: Training is provided to professionals and organisations, or to women and girls with lived experience, to better equip them to support women and girls in need. Training for those with lived experience also included frontline support and education opportunities to beneficiaries.

Signposting and awareness raising: Signposting is provided to women and girls to raise awareness and improve access to support services. This intervention seeks to strengthen support pathways and increase access to support, as well as to enable joined-up working.

Education: The provision of education and/or training is delivered to support the knowledge and skills development of women and girls, for example language skills.

Resources, equipment and technology: This is the provision of physical or digital equipment, tools or resources delivered to support women and girls. Examples of this include providing bikes, sanitary products, online services, educational resources or digital content/apps.

The first three categories are interventions that support women and girls via intermediary activities, while the last four are interventions delivered directly to women and girls. Successful applications included these intervention categories either individually or in combination. The most common categories were the direct delivery of frontline services and wider capacity building interventions. The least common interventions were signposting and awareness raising interventions and training.

Figure 5: Frequency of intervention types within successful applications

Percentage of applications.

Intervention categories	Onward grants	Training	Wider capacity building	Signposting and awareness raising	Frontline services	Education	Resources, equipment and technology
Percentage of applications	23.91%	15.22%	37.68%	11.59%	57.25%	22.46%	14.49%

Delivering frontline services directly to target groups was the most common intervention category, included in around 58% of successful applications. Almost 90% of these focused on three main types of intervention, as follows.

1. Targeted support services to address VAWG: These were provided in around half of successful applications. They included rape crisis trauma-informed holistic support for survivors of sexual violence.

2. Other support services (mental health or financial advice): These were provided in around 45% of successful applications. They included evidence-based guidance to help carers support family members with eating disorders, and most commonly targeted groups of women and teenage girls from ethnic minority backgrounds at risk of exclusion.

3. Outreach programmes: These were included in almost 18% of successful applications and focused on issues affecting women and girls (for example, supporting ‘link workers’ to support and strengthen relationships between women’s centres and prisons), most often targeting specific groups including women and girls from ethnic minority backgrounds and (ex-) offenders.

Most successful applications involving frontline services (around two-thirds) also involved another intervention category, primarily education, training and/or wider capacity building interventions. Around 35% of successful applications involved frontline delivery alone.

Figure 6: Percentage of frontline service types in successful applications delivering services alone

Frontline service intervention type	Percentage of applications
Targeted VAWG support services	43.75
Other support services (mental health, money advice)	43.75
Outreach programmes	6.25
VAWG plus other support services	3.13
VAWG plus other support services and outreach programmes	3.13

Wider capacity building interventions were included in 38% of applications. These involved building the capacity of other organisations or networks to enable them to deliver services and programmes. For example, one project team incorporated capacity building in their onward grant-making activities by providing one-off payments to onward grantees to support digital skills capacity building. More common audiences were the staff of NHS teams and onward grantees, but other frontline services were also targeted. For instance, one organisation worked with 20 police forces across England and Wales to increase the number of specialist officers trained to investigate, assess and manage risk and enhance safeguarding regarding honour-based abuse and forced marriage.

Action research and evidence gathering activities were also included within wider capacity building interventions (21% of all successful applications, involving either scoping activities, audits or research with academics). Scoping activities were the most common, mainly as a standalone research activity. These were varied in terms of both methodologies and focus, including participatory surveys to identify the number, type and causes of incidents of domestic abuse and sexual violence in pilot communities.

Just under a quarter (24%) of applications involved onward funding, and 60% of these solely delivered onward funding (while the remainder combined onward funding with service delivery). Examples of applications only undertaking onward grants included those providing grants to specialist Black and minority women’s organisations to support their frontline work to end VAWG, and to improve the lives of disadvantaged and under-represented women and girls in deprived areas across Northern Ireland.

Applications combining onward grants with other intervention categories did so in a variety of ways, most commonly with education, training and capacity building (in nine out of 13 cases), for example:

• combining a range of grants (for example, seed funding, small and larger grants) to support the sustainability of women’s groups in local communities with capacity building and establishing a Centre of Excellence to bring together learning and best practice through workshops and training

• providing grants of between £10,000 and £50,000 to fund gender-specific peer support initiatives (for example, supporting disadvantaged women living with/at risk of developing mental health problems) combined with learning events, tools, resources and onward grantee training

Support services and frontline service delivery interventions were also delivered with onward grants (in four out of 13 cases). An example was assertive outreach and access to accommodation to support sex workers, women experiencing homelessness and victims of domestic abuse into safe spaces.

Around 22% of successful applications included education interventions. These were discreet and time-limited education and training programmes directly targeting women and girls within communities. Specific audiences were varied and included women offenders and those at risk of reoffending, refugee women, young women and girls (aged 9–15) from areas of high deprivation, homeless victims of modern slavery and older women (aged over 55) in a specific local authority area.

Reflecting these diverse audiences, the subjects of education interventions were also varied. Topics included training women in the criminal justice system in life skills, emotional wellbeing, healthy relationships and parenting; and using sport and physical activity to support personal development, confidence and empowerment around relationships and sexual health among disengaged girls or girls at risk of exclusion in areas of high deprivation. Specific examples included providing employment support to women from ethnic minority backgrounds who were unemployed and who had limited English language and basic skills.

Training interventions were included in 15% of successful applications. These targeted professional staff, volunteers and/or people with lived experience working for organisations to better equip them to support women and girls. They mainly targeted staff of VAWG centres or services. Specific examples included briefing and information events for senior managers during the rollout of an accredited domestic violence prevention programme; a mentoring process, safeguarding procedures, risk assessments and confidentiality for young female peer mentors; and recruiting and training specialist call handlers to better deal with the complexity of honour-based abuse and forced marriage cases.

The provision of resources, equipment and technology was included in 14% of applications, and included:

• the provision of clothing and equipment to single pregnant women and young mothers in West London to prepare for the arrival of their baby and/or move into independent living

• the production of new and modern programme materials for 30,000 Girlguiding units, supporting leaders to reduce time spent on planning and to increase time spent with young members

• the production of best practice guidance and training materials for midwives to support pregnant women and new mothers in prisons and the community

Technology interventions included the development of new apps and technology and involving delivery or improvement (including the extension of app content and features). New apps included a digital miscarriage risk calculator for women experiencing two or more miscarriages, and the development of existing apps and technology, including updating an existing app with new content to support women through their maternity journey.

Signposting and awareness raising interventions featured in the fewest successful applications (12%), and included:

• signposting services that provide advice and support to victims of online abuse, including intimate image abuse, with targets to reach almost 950,000 women and girls

• linking local domestic abuse services directly with project ambassadors (local residents) to help ensure more survivors are signposted to the right support as soon as they disclose

• providing advice, practical support and signposting for housing, benefit and immigration issues

2.3.4 Monitoring and evaluation plans

The vast majority of applications included plans for some form and combination of internal monitoring activity, internal evaluation and/or external evaluation. Almost 93% of applications included plans to collect monitoring data, primarily regarding activities and outputs but sometimes also outcomes and/or impacts. There was a wide variety of data types within monitoring plans, but common types were quantitative data (such as numbers of grants, activities, outputs and beneficiaries), demographic data (beneficiary age, ethnicity and language) and qualitative data. The collection of qualitative data was mentioned in around 35% of applications, although qualitative indicators were generally not clearly defined and commonly referred to ‘softer’ outcomes such as confidence, self-esteem, wellbeing, happiness and emotional state.

Fund recipients were required to submit basic monitoring data on activities, outputs (i.e. people helped; training delivered; onward funds awarded; etc.) and outcomes as part of grant requirements, as well as monitoring their expenditure against forecasts and budget. Otherwise, there were no standardised approaches by which project monitoring was undertaken.

Just over 93% of successful applications included plans for some form of internal or external evaluation of their TTF activities. However, while some made clear distinctions between the monitoring and evaluation activities proposed, most were less clear. Around 45% proposed to evaluate their activities internally, 14% proposed to evaluate them externally, and 32% reported a combination of internal and external evaluation.

2.3.5 Planned outcomes and impact

TTF did not have a logic model at its commencement with a set of specific intended project outcomes and impacts that funded projects would contribute to and achieve. Funding proposals, and the 137 successful applications within them, aimed to address a variety of issues in a wide range of ways. The intended project outcomes and impacts identified in the review of applications reflected this, and differed widely based on individual mandates, missions and types of organisations applying. These were categorised within a TTF logic model developed for the evaluation as a set of broad possible project outcomes (both short-term and long-term) and impacts at different levels: sector, organisation and individual.

Table 4: Percentage of intended short-term outcomes

Planned short-term outcomes	Percentage of applications
Improved access to quality support for women and girls in need	81%
Improved ability/skill to support women in need	74%
Improved access to resources, guidance and shared learning	67%
Improved sector partnerships and organisational linking	58%

Table 5: Percentage of intended long-term outcomes

Intended long-term outcomes	Percentage of applications
Improved physical and mental health management	70%
Improved confidence	51%
Increased help-seeking	49%
Improved sector knowledge and increased assets	46%

Table 6: Percentage of intended impacts

Intended impacts	Percentage of applications
Reduced risk and/or experience of violence and harm	55%
Women and girls able to act as own agents	54%
Sector shift from response to prevention	41%

Most successful applications included multiple intended short-term and long-term outcomes and impacts.

2.4 Reported outcomes and impact

This section explores the self-reported outcomes provided by the TTF projects in End of Grant reports. This data is mixed in terms of coverage and the amount, type and quality of data provided varies considerably. Those funded in the 2020/2021 and 2021/2022 funding rounds could not provide any outcome or impact data as their projects were ongoing. Combined, these factors limited the analysis to projects providing sufficient data of good quality within the 119 projects providing End of Grant reports at the time of fieldwork.

Most applications included a combination of multiple short-term outcomes, with fewer applications detailing long-term outcomes and/or impacts. This is reflected in the self-reported data, as most organisations provided data on multiple short-term outcomes, and fewer provided data on long-term outcomes and impacts. Projects in the most recent funding round (2021/2022) had not submitted End of Grant reports at the time of research. Therefore, the full extent of outcomes may not have been realised yet.

2.4.1 Short-term outcomes

Of the 119 projects that provided data on outcomes and impacts through their End of Grant reports, 44% provided some form of evidence showing improved access to quality support for women and girls in need, the most common short-term outcome included in applications (Table 4). Evidence focused both on increasing the number of women and girls able to access support, but also included the quality dimension of this outcome. Examples included an organisation implementing a project to support women and girls at risk of violence, which reported that 95% of clients felt they had gained access to social networks and support as a result of the project, enabling them to access services and better support.

Thirty-five percent of projects reported delivering outcomes in terms of improved ability and skill to support women in need. Outcomes reported were primarily related to training delivered and the resulting increase in individual knowledge and skills to support women in need. Some also related to increased organisational capacity and changes in ways of working to better meet needs. For instance, a national organisation tackling homelessness for women survivors of modern-day slavery provided free training for frontline professionals to spot signs of modern slavery and intervene. Of the participants who responded to a feedback survey, 97% reported that the information they had received would enable them to better protect people against the risk of modern slavery.

Thirty-four percent of projects also reported positive outcomes related to improved access to resources, guidance and shared learning. Examples included projects to create a platform for a UK-wide partnership of over 250 members (including not-for profit, sport, education, health, police and local government organisations) to respond more effectively to domestic abuse and sexual abuse. An app was developed to improve access to guidance and resources. This was downloaded by almost 21,000 users, and the directory was expanded to over 450 specialist domestic abuse services.

Improved sector partnerships and organisational linking was the least common short-term outcome found in applications, but the second most reported on by organisations themselves following implementation. Forty-two percent of projects reported evidence of outcomes in this area. Examples ranged from individual meetings between a project team member and a local council (to discuss referral pathways with relevant agencies for young pregnant women at risk or experiencing abuse) to wider and more strategic networking activities across multiple organisations.

Table 7: Reported short-term outcomes

Reported short-term outcomes	Percentage of projects
Improved access to quality support for women and girls in need	44%
Improved sector partnerships and organisational linking	42%
Improved ability and skill to support women in need	35%
Improved access to resources, guidance and shared learning	34%

2.4.2 Long-term outcomes

TTF applications included fewer long-term outcomes in proposals, which was reflected in self-reported evidence on long-term impacts. Evidence of long-term outcomes on physical and mental health management was most commonly reported (by 39% of projects), including an onward grantee who explained how the grant enabled them to change how they assessed women and determined and prioritised their needs, leading to positive outcomes for beneficiaries.

Evidence around the improved confidence of women and girls was both quantitative and qualitative, with evidence from 37% of TTF projects demonstrating the results of work towards this outcome. For instance, quantitative evidence from a project providing one-to-one specialist support for women and girls aged over 16 who were affected by abuse showed that, of the women self-reporting in a survey, 61% felt more confident, 53% felt better able to deal with problems, 60% felt better able to make decisions, 51% were clear that the abuse was not their fault, 30% were more confident in their parenting skills and 42% had a better understanding of the impact of abuse on their children.

Evidence of increased help-seeking by women and girls was less common than other outcomes (20% of projects), although there was usually clear quantitative evidence showing increased service use (such as a charity for Muslim women and girls reporting a 25% increase in contacts to its helpline in 2017).

Long-term outcomes in improved sector knowledge and increased assets were found in 31% of projects that reported. All the self-reported evidence related to this outcome showed positive achievements. Examples included an organisation stating that 98% of professionals attending their courses had increased their knowledge of the impact of period poverty among young people.

Table 8: Reported long-term outcomes

Reported long-term outcomes	Percentage of projects
Physical and mental health management	39%
Improved confidence of women and girls	37%
Increased help-seeking by women and girls	20%
Improved sector knowledge and increased assets	31%

2.4.3 Impacts

A variety of evidence of contributions towards changes in the risk and/or experience of violence and harm for women and girls was reported in 21% of projects. In some, this was anecdotal evidence regarding individual beneficiaries; for example, a small project supporting women who were being forced through the family law courts process by an abusive ex-partner explained how one client left court with the protection she needed after a team member intervened acting as a McKenzie friend. In a second example, a project reported that 93% of the women it supported in accessing advice, emotional and practical support felt their risk had reduced compared to before the project.

Evidence of contributions towards women and girls acting as their own agents was both quantitative and qualitative, and 26% of projects showed evidence of this impact. For example, a charity supporting women from ethnic minority backgrounds reported quotes from women it had supported, including: “I can access the doctor’s surgery better. I know what to say on the phone. I am able to go out and know how to use services like asking for a prescription at the doctors.”

Evidence regarding contributions towards a sector shift from response to prevention was found in 21% of projects. One example came from the final report of an external evaluation of the Good for Girls Project, which aimed to increase access for young women and girls from ethnic minority backgrounds to holistic early intervention mental health support. The report stated that:

BAME young women can access relevant, holistic early intervention mental health support in trusted community spaces. This includes support and guidance from trained youth professionals, and opportunities to develop relationships, skills and tools to maintain positive mental health. Young women get support earlier, meaning fewer require referral to specialist services.

A second project supporting women from ethnic minority backgrounds who were survivors of violence and domestic abuse reported that women using their services were leaving violent and abusive situations at earlier stages.

Table 9: Reported impacts

Reported impacts	Percentage of projects
Reduced risk and/or experience of violence and harm for women and girls	21%
Women and girls being able to act as their own agents	25%
Sector shift from response to prevention	21%

2.5 Lessons learned by delivery teams

Organisations (and sometimes beneficiaries) identified a range of lessons related to both TTF and individual project processes. These were drawn from their experiences of implementing TTF funded projects (or receiving their services); some were project-specific, while others applied more broadly. While there were no clear links between lessons and specific intervention categories or delivery models, several lessons relating to onward funding were identified. Key lessons identified by delivery teams relevant at the Fund level included the following.

• onward funding programmes require sufficient time (over two years) and organisational inputs to establish and implement grants processes, deliver grants and wind down

• a ‘test-and-learn’, learning-focused approach to grant-making and grant management improved project outcomes and provided additional outcomes for onward grantee organisations

• working as part of a national (or multi-area) partnership provided smaller organisations with opportunities to build capacity, learn from others and develop more effective working practices

Project delivery teams identified lessons for project design, implementation and outcomes of relevance to future schemes that are relevant to consider in future project design, including the following.

• adapting implementation to account for different (and changing) contexts and requirements of specific target communities benefited women’s participation and project outcomes

• project design should consider all stakeholders’ capacity, interests and relationships – especially if not directly involved in implementation, but able to influence project success

• there was significant value in including women with lived experience in delivery (for example, in providing support to specific groups of women), and particularly on advisory/steering groups

• engaging with some female stakeholder groups (for example, carers, refugees, etc.) relied on local partnerships and direct contact, and could be more difficult and costly than other groups

A wide range of issue-specific or project-specific lessons were also identified by delivery teams, including the following:

• working with women and girls with multiple and complex needs required time to establish trust between project staff and their peers, and creative approaches to reach beneficiaries

• remote training on sensitive issues increased risks around providing the training content and dealing with potential emotional impacts on trainees

• online portals/tools, however, provided safe ways for women and girls to raise sensitive issues or approach projects providing support and were better than phone helplines

Some organisations identified a set of clear issues and recommendations to help inform wider policy on particular issues, highlighting the need for wider engagement with local frontline organisations to understand their experiences, knowledge and expertise.

2.6 Plans for future funding

Half of the direct grantees implementing projects provided details of their future intentions and plans post-TTF funding. In most cases, these were positive, with intentions to continue improving and/or expanding services using experience and capacity developed during their TTF project. In most cases, this included a continuation (or increase) in income from other sources developed during the TTF project, increased networks and/or learning to broaden services provided or areas covered. For example, one organisation intended to expand its services from local to regional (with local authority funding in place in each area) via a regional model to test delivery across a wider area. In others, future funding was still being sought but plans were positive, and several large funding applications had been submitted or fundraising groups established. Some had also used part of their total grant as ‘sustainability funding’, as follows.

A £1.2 million project to update a pre-existing app with new content (including specific content for women and girls from ethnic minority backgrounds) to support women through their maternity journey and improve maternity outcomes received sustainability funding of £75,088 to increase the capacity to train and grow their engagement team and to ensure that the business-wide operational activity had the capacity to train, support and embed new project staff and processes into the charity.

A £600,000 project to extend rape crisis trauma-informed frontline services to specific women and girls from ethnic minority backgrounds and women with disabilities received sustainability funding of £10,000 to invest in improving their IT processes, specifically to allow each delivery partner to implement a secure multi-language web form on their websites to enable first language survivors to make referrals at a time convenient to them through the portal.

A £2.3 million project providing match funding grants to women and girls charities received sustainability funding of £10,000 towards building digital fundraising skills, leadership training for women staff members and establishing a philanthropic community specifically targeting causes that help women and girls.

Around a fifth of the organisations describing future plans were less positive, with funding applications that were uncertain or not yet secured. In some cases, services had continued using internal funds (at least in the short term) while alternative funding continued to be sought. In a few cases, project work and services had to stop. COVID-19 also had an impact on this, with funding streams shifting focus or service requirements and delivery models also changing.

Appendix 3: Findings from case study research

3.1 Introduction

This appendix summarises the key process findings emerging from the experiences of eight bid area case studies across past and present funding rounds. Research was conducted by Kantar Public in November and December 2022. The methodological approach will be discussed first, followed by a synthesis of overall case study findings and, last, the individual case studies.

3.2 Methodology

Kantar Public conducted 22 in-depth interviews across eight organisations, with each interview lasting between 45 and 60 minutes. Between one and five people were interviewed in each case study, with interviews lasting between 60 and 90 minutes. Interviews were conducted via Zoom or telephone. The case study research aimed to explore the detail of TTF funded projects’ rationale for their bid and bid design, experience of delivering their project and lessons learned, and perceived outcomes/impacts.

3.2.1 Case study selection

Case studies were selected based on agreed criteria with DCMS, ensuring a spread across:

• year funding was received

• total cost of the funded project

• location of the project

• project focus

• intervention type

• number of relevant people available for interview within the organisation

• delivery model (as per the logic model)

The composition of the eight case studies selected is illustrated in Table 10 below. All cases are direct grantees, with some involved in onward grant-making.

Table 10: Overview of case studies

Year funding received	Four projects funded in 2021/2022, one funded in 2020/2021, two funded in 2017/2018 and one funded in 2016/2017
Total cost of the funded project	Two projects received £150,000 to £299,000, three received £300,000 to £699,000, one received £700,000 to £999,000 and two received £1 million to £2 million
Location of the project	Four projects based in England only; two in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; one in England, Scotland and Wales; and one in Wales only
Project focus	Improving literacy rates among deprived populations Development of a digital tool to support those experiencing online abuse A sports-based ‘big sister’ programme Onward funding and targeted support (two projects) Genetic screening pilot to detect ovarian cancer Frontline services to women from ethnic minority backgrounds who have experienced violence and have no recourse to public funds (NRPF) Development of an advocacy model to improve current practice relating to financial control as a form of domestic violence
Intervention type	One project delivered an education intervention, including elements of training One project delivered an app (resources, equipment and technology intervention) Three projects delivered, or had elements of, onward funding Two projects delivered action research/awareness raising (capacity building) Two projects delivered, or had elements of, frontline services
Delivery model	Two projects = model 1 (delivery of activity accessed directly by beneficiaries) Two projects = model 2 (delivery of intermediary capacity building interventions that subsequently support the final beneficiaries) Four projects = model 4 (onward grants are used to deliver intermediary capacity building interventions that subsequently support beneficiaries)

3.2.2 Recruitment

Kantar Public spoke to stakeholders with a strategic remit (for example, those involved in the design and oversight of TTF projects) and stakeholders with an operational remit (for example, those involved in day-to-day delivery of TTF projects). The sample was snowballed from a primary contact of each project, shared by DCMS. A pre-identified scope of interventions and areas of enquiry were agreed for each case study. Each case study involved an initial document review of the bid application documents, which included details on interventions, funding round project focus and delivery model. Interviewers identified the project theme, year of delivery, intervention types being delivered, whether projects were involved in multiple rounds of funding and the reasons for case study selection.

3.3 Case study analysis: Synthesis of findings

This section outlines the key findings of the case study research, first reporting perceptions and experiences of the bid design and delivery stages, then exploring the common facilitators and barriers to delivering the funded projects, and finally considering the sustainability of the projects beyond TTF funding.

3.3.1 Bid design and application experiences

Grantees receiving funding in earlier rounds found the bid application a simple and straightforward process, especially in earlier years of the Fund. Of the eight case studies presented, three were past grantees, one of which no longer had employees in the organisation involved in the bidding process and so could not comment on their experiences. Two other past grantees were also involved in the most recent round, and mentioned that the previous rounds (2016/2017 and 2017/2018) had been less time-consuming and more straightforward due to less information being required. However, one case study mentioned that the lack of guidance and support in the 2016/2017 round had been a challenge.

Case studies who took part in the most recent round of funding found the application to be more repetitive and unnecessarily time-consuming. Stakeholders felt the bid application process could have been more streamlined and that the information required of them was repeated across the application form. For example, one case study mentioned having to break down outcomes by quarter, before having to repeat this information again in the quarterly outputs. It was felt to be an onerous process, requiring large resources. Another case study felt the outputs section of the bid application form was the most complicated, as it asked for a lot of very specific details:

It would almost be impossible for a smaller charity to do what we did, and we only did it by pulling almost all our resource into it … it was a real gamble. If it hadn’t have paid off, we would have wasted a lot of time and money on.

– Case study interview participant

Learnings from previous rounds were generally felt to facilitate a smoother bid application process. When case studies were involved in the bid design and application in prior rounds, they felt it helped them complete the application successfully in subsequent rounds. Some case studies felt they had become more efficient in the application process due to being more familiar with the documentation and requirements. For example, one case study knew how long it would take them to compile information for the application and also knew how to differentiate between outputs and outcomes based on their previous experience. Another case study attributed their success in the most recent round to having had more time to build an evidence base illustrating the need for the intervention. It is important to note that one case study felt being involved in multiple rounds had not helped them, as the content needed was so different each time. In some cases, grantees reported that learnings from previous rounds had enabled them to cater their project plans to the TTF funding criteria:

We’ve got pretty good at being able to match something that we want to get funded, with what the criteria is for funding provision.

– Case study interview participant

Guidance and support from DCMS was helpful in mitigating a demanding bid application process. Case studies felt DCMS was supportive throughout the six-week bid application process and that the guidance it provided was clear and constructive. This helped reduce the complexities and facilitate a smoother process. This was only mentioned by grantees who bid in the most recent round of funding, suggesting that, although the most recent application process was felt to be more complex, it was somewhat mitigated by support from DCMS.

3.3.2 Delivery experience

Overall, case studies were positive about their experience of delivering TTF projects and felt they were able to achieve, or were on track to achieve, their goals despite some challenges.

Effective partnership working facilitated the successful delivery of projects. Across case studies, interviewees reported the importance of partnering with other organisations for the successful implementation of interventions. This was common across grantees irrespective of the interventions they implemented. Case studies often spoke highly of their delivery partners and of the positive relationships formed with them. These collaborations, along with the expertise derived from them, were felt to be instrumental in overcoming barriers and delivering successfully. Stakeholders also mentioned that the knowledge and learning they had gained through working with delivery partners was an unexpected positive outcome of project delivery:

So far, it’s been around our working patterns with external partners … It’s nice to feel that we’re one team, rather than external development, and that’s reciprocated.

– Case study interview participant

Scoping research in the early phases of delivery was important for informing the direction and development of overall interventions. In some cases, grantees conducted scoping exercise after receiving funding, where they conducted research with target beneficiaries. These early research activities shaped the direction and development of interventions. For example, one case study held workshops with practitioners and survivors of abuse to test the usability of a new digital tool, which helped to identify priority areas for improving the function of the tool.

Case studies that did onward funding felt their ability to prioritise women and girls from minority backgrounds in their projects was a success. With TTF funding, some grantees were able to ensure a proportion of onward grantees worked with women and girls from ethnic minority backgrounds and marginalised communities. One case study mentioned that this was not achievable in the past with regular government funding, so being able to incorporate it in their TTF project was an important success.

Consulting beneficiaries and advisors at various stages of delivery allowed direct grantees to develop and adapt their interventions more effectively. Some grantees carried out consultations, feedback sessions and evaluations at various different points of the design stage or delivery, which informed the development or adaption of their interventions. For example, one case study introduced an SMS option for students to provide feedback on a training programme, leading to an increase in responses. Interviewees from another case study, consulted women who were using their service on the design of their interventions (training programmes and a refuge centre) during the design phase, felt this consultation contributed to buy-in from beneficiaries at later stages of delivery.

Timeframes for project delivery were challenging. Case studies felt the turnaround times were tight for delivering interventions, particularly among those engaging in onward funding, as government funds are required to operate and deliver funds on an annual basis. Delivery times granted to projects varied between funding rounds; projects had between 12 and 36 months to deliver their interventions. Direct grantees often needed to complete numerous administrative tasks to set up their onward grant structures, including their own bid selection processes and fund management. Incorporating this into the delivery timeframes could result in knock-on effects for onward grantees, as they had less time to deliver their funded projects.

Challenges recruiting suitable individuals for project roles hindered delivery. Case studies mentioned that filling specific job roles for projects was sometimes an issue. Grantees felt this was due to various factors, including the short-term nature of the roles and contextual factors such as a general skills shortage within an often low-paid and stressful sector. Recruitment issues often caused timelines to slip, which then had a knock-on effect for the length of job posts:

It’s a difficult sector – it’s high stress, dealing with trauma and crisis, so people often burn out.

– Case study interview participant

3.4 Outcomes and impacts

Overall, due to the nature of the projects and the aims they are trying to achieve, measuring outcomes and impacts was challenging and outcomes and impacts were often based on anecdotal evidence. Furthermore, for those case studies in the most recent round of funding, many felt it was too early to comment on outcomes or impacts at the time of fieldwork, as project delivery was ongoing. The common outcomes and impacts across the case studies are discussed in this section.

3.4.1 Women and girls supported by TTF funded services

Overall, case studies felt that women and girls had been supported by the services provided, evidenced by direct feedback from beneficiaries and monitoring data. In one case study, reports provided evidence that marginalised women had improved their mental health along with their financial resilience. In another case study, the project helped provide safe accommodation and training for survivors of abuse, which some of the women stated had helped save their lives.

3.4.2 Increased awareness of women and girls’ issues

Case studies spoke about how activities undertaken for TTF projects had helped raise awareness among the general public and the wider public sector about the issues women and girls face. For example, one case study felt there had been a significant increase in the awareness of economic abuse among policy makers, domestic abuse charities and financial organisations. In another case study, outreach activities were felt to have led to increased awareness of the genetic risk for ovarian cancer among government bodies, as well as among the general public:

It’s hugely raised awareness, and created momentum, not just in the women’s domestic abuse sector, but in loads of related sectors, such as the financial services sector, which is increasingly recognising economic abuse as a form of vulnerability to their customers.

– Case study participant

3.4.3 Contribution to policy and process developments

In a few cases, TTF projects were felt to have contributed to wider policy developments. For example, one case study felt that their research had contributed evidence that culminated in significant policy changes, such as the recognition of economic abuse in the Domestic Abuse Act and the inclusion of economic abuse in the Financial Conduct Authority’s Code of Conduct. Another case study’s campaign work on the genetic risks of ovarian cancer was felt to have contributed to an improved process for diagnosing patients, implemented by the Department of Health and Social Care.

3.4.4 Increased profile of TTF funded organisations

Some grantees felt that the profile and awareness of their organisation’s work had increased as a result of their TTF funded project, which had unexpected positive outcomes. In one case, staff spent less time on their regular outreach activities as they experienced increased interest in, and attendance at, their programmes due to the increased profile of their organisation.

3.4.5 New relationships formed as a result of TTF

Some cases noted that the new relationships formed with individuals and organisations through their project would be likely to open up opportunities for future work. One case study mentioned they had formed new relationships with nurses and physiotherapists, which would benefit the organisation in the longer term. Another mentioned that the positive relationships formed with their partners meant future collaborative bids were likely:

We have a much closer working relationship with [organisation], and that has been a really positive thing for us.

– Case study interview participant

3.5 Sustainability

Overall, the continuation of the most recent and of past grantees’ projects depended on their ability to secure funding. At the time of research, the grantees of the most recent funding round were in the process of seeking future funding to continue or develop interventions and reported significant uncertainty in the future of their projects. However, a project engaged in onward funding in the most recent round (2021/2022) noted that two of their onward grantees had already secured future funding. In other projects, onward grantees were yet to secure future funding.”As a result of Tampon Tax ending, there will be a significant drop in funding in the sector.” (Case study interview participant)

Some past grantees secured funding from other sources, which allowed the continuation of elements of their projects. This funding came from a range of sources, including internal streams of income, additional funding from external partners or government funds (for example, Home Office funding). Where projects accessed further funding, some activities continued. One project was able to keep their refuge for women open at reduced capacity, and a second was able to adapt and expand their pilot training programme to organisations in Northern Ireland and Scotland.

3.6 Case study summaries

3.6.1 Case Study One (TTF 2017/2018 funding round)

Case Study One (CS1) is an organisation that specialises in providing frontline holistic support to women, children and young people from ethnic minority backgrounds in the North East of England, with a particular focus on women with NRPF. With the funding, the organisation opened a refuge specifically for women with NRPF and also extended their education, training and holistic support services. Overall, CS1 felt the funding was instrumental in their ability to meet the needs of their beneficiaries and have subsequently opened other refuge centres with other funding.

Bid design and application experience

Staff involved in the bid design and application process no longer work at CS1. Those interviewed as part of the case study worked in operational roles across CS1’s outreach and advocacy services and could not comment on the application experience.

However, existing staff were involved in activities that had informed the bid design. For example, CS1 carried out a consultation with existing beneficiaries that highlighted the need for a refuge and directly informed the TTF application:

It was a great opportunity to be part of that and get the service users to be part of that as well.

One of the things I was really happy about was the involvement and the voice of the women as well.

Delivery experience and progress

Overall, delivery of the funded project was felt to have gone very well. CS1 felt that there were very few barriers to delivery and that they achieved their ultimate aims of creating safe spaces for women from ethnic minority backgrounds with NRPF and supporting them with a range of activities, including access to social services, immigration and legal help, and personal development and life skills.

Frontline services

Setting up the refuge was a relatively straightforward process. CS1 utilised their existing networks to find a suitable location close to the CS1 and secured a property without difficulty.

In 2017 we opened one refuge and then because of high demand of No Recourse to Public Funds we wanted another … when we got the tampon tax funding, then we opened another refuge specialised for NRPF women.

Education and training

CS1 provides a range of education and training opportunities to women, including English language courses, employability support, life skills and social integration activities. This is an ongoing core element of CS1’s services supported by TTF funding and accessed by beneficiaries of the refuge.

Successes and facilitators of delivery

Utilising existing relationships to secure a property for the refuge meant that this was a relatively straightforward process:

We knew a guy who had a property near us … so we negotiated with him.

As a result of consulting women during the bid design phase, CS1 achieved buy-in from the beneficiaries and found them to be excited and enthusiastic about the refuge.

Challenges and barriers of delivery

CS1 needed to recruit extra staff to support the project. CS1 felt that getting the ‘right’ frontline staff in was a challenge as it was hard to get people who understood the project’s aims and objectives and the level of trauma experienced by the beneficiaries, as well as how to conscientiously navigate this in their interactions with beneficiaries.

Outcomes and impact

Overall, 26 women and nine children were provided with emergency accommodation over one year. A further 36 women participated in a range of training courses, of which 15 women completed accredited women’s champions training. Under 5% of women who accessed services returned to abusive families; 95% continue to live independently and free from abuse.

The funded project was felt to have had a profound impact on the lives of beneficiaries, as well as a significant impact on the organisation as whole. Staff felt that the refuge had achieved its aims of providing safe accommodation and training for survivors of violence and abuse who had NRPF:

Some of them [the women] say the project saves their life.

One of the women said … when I first got involved, all I could see was darkness ahead of me, but I now I can see a light at the end of the tunnel. Just to even hear that … I think that made a lot of difference for us.

The project was also felt to have had an unexpected organisational impact, raising the profile of CS1 in the VAWG sector and enabling the organisation to reach more beneficiaries. Staff did not need to spend as much time on their regular outreach activities such as door-to-door leafleting or other advertising, and felt this was due to word of mouth about the project. CS1 felt that TTF funding helped the organisation gain momentum, and they have since opened three other refuges.

Looking ahead

CS1 have continued to run the refuge since TTF funding ended in 2021. CS1 plan to keep the refuge open with other sources of funding (for example, Home Office funding) but have had to introduce cutbacks, including reducing the number of bedrooms in the refuge, reducing or removing elements of the training and support on offer to women, and introducing further limits on the number of beneficiaries they can accept:

It’s a sad thing.

Three years ago we were proud of ourselves … but now we have to say no.

3.6.2 Case Study Two (TTF 2021/2022 funding round)

Case Study Two (CS2) is a national charity working with disadvantaged children. Their programme is a 10-week education programme for girls aged 11–14 who have been excluded, or are at risk of exclusion, based in alternative education settings such as Pupil Referral Units (PRUs). The project aims to increase girls’ literacy/oracy and communications skills, increase their confidence and support positive relationships through the exploration of literary texts.

Bid design and application experience

CS2 had applied for TTF funding rounds multiple times but had previously been unsuccessful. They attribute their successes in the 2021/2022 funding round to the strengthened evidence base they had built to demonstrate the need for the programme. CS2 were surprised and pleased to see sustainability as a specific element of the bidding process and appreciated the flexibility of the Fund, which allowed them to adapt the programme to best meet the needs of their target group:

We’ve flexed to support [students’] needs in the best way possible, and the funder has supported us to do that. And I think that’s the mark of a really good funder … we’re all staying on the same hymn sheet.

Delivery experience and progress

At the time of the case study research, CS2 was at the mid-point of delivery, with delivery on track within the planned timeline and budget. There had been some variation in the delivery plan since the bid was designed, for example a shift in focus away from sports-based role models and the reallocation of resources to reach additional schools.

Intervention: training and education

The project was delivered by a specially recruited project manager, researchers and trainers at CS2. Schools are recruited to participate, and teachers receive bespoke training to deliver the 10-week programme. Students are provided with resource packs as part of the programme, including a workbook and literary texts, which they are able to keep after the programme ends:

The idea is that, by the end, [students] should feel more confident in representing their own voice.

Successes and facilitators of delivery

A key success of intervention delivery to date includes the successful recruitment of schools, exceeding CS2’s original target to work with 1,500 girls in over 300 educational settings in the first terms and a further 192 in the second and third terms:

[The materials] makes the group feel really special… the teacher can come in and say this is all for you, just for you, no one is else taking it away … it’s all about giving attention to those young people and making them feel included.

The key enablers to delivery have included designing a programme that meets a clear need and gap and iteratively adapting the programme plan and educational materials in line with feedback. Establishing an advisory group who have supported with the review of programme materials has also enabled effective delivery:

Everything has been about getting better and better at supporting the young people, engaging them better and giving them more of what they need and what they want.

Challenges and barriers of delivery

The key challenges and barriers to delivery were primarily the short-term nature of the Fund and tight delivery timelines. The nuances of programme delivery within the alternative education settings, for example the transience of the student population, proved to be challenging in maximising reach. CS2’s external evaluation partner faced challenges in collecting data and personal information from students taking part in the programme, as students struggled, or did not consent, to participate in research activities:

That transience, it’s really hard to regularly have a strong cohort all the way through.

NLT also reported a “tricky relationship” with their external evaluator from Manchester Metropolitan University, who did not understand how PRUs worked and created lengthy surveys with which young people did not engage.

Outcomes and impact

The evaluation of the project was ongoing at the point of research. However, examples of outcomes observed by CS2 included positive feedback from those accessing the programmes so far, as well as positive feedback from teachers, including their commitment to apply their learning across other areas of the curriculum.

An unexpected outcome was the high level of demand for the programme from schools. One school also completely redesigned their curriculum to embed oracy at the core of what they deliver.

Looking ahead

At the time of the case study research, CS2 were looking for funding to continue the programme beyond the TTF funding period, but have not yet been able to secure it.

If they are not successful in securing funding for the programme, they will move to a ‘trader model’ – an approach they have applied with previous programmes. This model involves charging schools a fee, therefore limiting the programme reach and impact:

It’s a relatively short grant, so we’ve always had an eye on sustainability.

3.6.3 Case Study Three (TTF 2021/2022 funding round)

Case Study Three (CS3) is a national umbrella organisation for the violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence (VOWDSV) sector in Wales. In 2021, they were awarded funds to deliver nine onward grants as part of TTF. CS3’s project aimed to secure more funding for the VOWDSV sector in Wales, enabling their member organisations to deliver new services and approaches to tackle challenges facing women and girls.

Bid design and application experience

CS3 found the process of applying quite challenging. They felt the application was repetitive in places and that turnaround times for submission were quite tight:

We had to break down key milestones, and the outcomes by quarter, and then you had to repeat yourself doing the very specific quarterly outputs as well … there was a lot, and you did feel like you were repeating yourself for the sake of it.

CS3 have been involved in other rounds of TTF, but experienced delays around gaining approval of the grants from the Welsh government. This was not felt to be an issue in the most recent round of funding. Generally, CS3 did not think their approach had changed in the most recent compared to previous rounds, but felt they were more efficient at the process.

Delivery experience and progress

At the time of the case study research, CS3’s project delivery was ongoing, and onward grantees’ projects were in progress and on track to deliver within the timeframe. CS3 were in the process of receiving evaluation and monitoring data back from their member organisations to assess progress and identify where support was needed.

Intervention: onward funding

Altogether, nine CS3 member organisations (all frontline service providers) received funding. CS3 established criteria for onward grantee applicants, including that the service proposed needed to adopt a trauma-informed approach to responding to VAWG. To set up for onward funding, CS3 took several steps. These included the recruitment of a project coordinator and an independent grant assessor, as well as information sessions for onward grantees.

Successes and facilitators of delivery

Generally, CS3 felt it was too early to comment on successes as delivery was ongoing, but felt the funding had enabled organisations to trial new and innovative projects and build capabilities:

It’s all a learning process really, and it’s all going to add to the capabilities of these organisations to deliver work in the future.

CS3 reported that strong relationships with the onward grantees and a dedicated project manager meant they were able to more effectively understand the needs of grantees and support them:

Because we know them, we know who needs that additional support, who needs a bit of additional focus, and how we can best support them in different ways.

Challenges and barriers of delivery

CS3 felt the key challenges in delivery lay in completing numerous set-up activities necessary for the onward funding within a short timeframe. These activities included the recruitment of the project coordinator and independent grant assessor, setting up the assessment panel and hosting workshops for member organisations:

It’s trying to get everything done and all of the grants assessed and agreed or not within that really, really very short timeframe.

CS3 would like to see a longer lead time and a longer funding period in future funds.

Outcomes and impact

Onward grantee activities funded by the CS3 bid were ongoing at the time of the case study research, and therefore CS3 felt it was too early to report tangible outcomes. However, they felt one outcome had been achieved which was securing more funding for Welsh organisations working in the VAWG sector, enabling organisations to trial new approaches and services:

Success is that the organisations have been enabled, given the capacity to do the work – whatever happens with those individual projects, it will be a success because of the learning that’s been brought into Wales as a result of it.

Looking ahead

As it stands, two projects being delivered by their member organisations have already secured additional funding to continue project activities beyond TTF:

This [TTF] has levered more funding, either externally or internally with money being ring-fenced for continuing this work.

Other projects have a finite start and end date and others are currently seeking future funding, which they are hoping the evaluation will help with.

3.6.4 Case Study Four (TTF 2017/2018 funding round)

Case Study Four (CS4) is a national charity working to raise awareness of, and design appropriate responses to, economic abuse as a form of domestic abuse. CS4 was founded in 2017. Its first grant was from TTF in 2017 for the Economic Justice project. The grant was used to fund a scoping study to develop responses to writing off coerced debt for women and to provide training for frontline professionals.

Bid design and application experience

CS4 found the application process to be straightforward in comparison with later rounds for which they applied. The funding allowed the charity to fund three staffing roles and explore approaches to writing off coerced debt in the UK, based on best practice in the US:

What we were trying to do was replicate best practice in America, whereby survivors of domestic abuse who’d been coerced into debt were getting write-offs for that debt, so they didn’t have to continue to pay it back for years after leaving the perpetrator…

Delivery experience and progress

Overall, delivery was felt to have gone well. CS4 worked with partner organisations in three London boroughs to test ways to integrate debt write-offs into their practice. CS4 felt supported by DCMS throughout delivery. For example, there was flexibility to change the approach when it became apparent that different mechanisms than those used in the US – write-offs through consumer law – would be more effective in the UK:

It felt that there was huge support for what we were trying to do, and it was seen as innovative.

Intervention: Action research

CS4 undertook initial scoping to understand how domestic abuse charities and money and debt advice organisations responded to economic abuse as part of domestic abuse. They found that these organisations were aware of the problem but had no training and little expertise in identifying and addressing it. The research also revealed the extent of economic abuse for the first time – the high proportion of domestic abuse survivors affected, and the financial scale of such abuse. CS4 developed a tool to screen for economic abuse as a result of their research.

Intervention: Education and training

As a result of the scoping findings, a training programme was developed for professionals working in domestic abuse charities and money and debt advice organisations to help them understand how to identify and address economic abuse.

Successes and facilitators of delivery

The project successfully developed formal mechanisms to identify economic abuse and encourage debt write-off in the UK, including a screening tool used by domestic abuse and money and debt advice organisations to identify victims of economic abuse, and an evidence form to advocate for their clients with creditors. The project was felt to fill an important gap in domestic abuse response, as no one else was working in this area in the UK at the time. Recognition of the work undertaken with TTF funding allowed CS4 to access bigger pots of funding to expand their work.

The training was well received, in part because participants were quick to recognise that they understood very little on the topic:

When the training was initially talked about, the services felt that they already had good understanding of economic abuse, and then recognised after the training that they didn’t.

Key enablers included good partnership working, using evaluation and feedback to develop their approach during the project, and the pre-existing solid reputation of the CEO at a time when the organisation was new and lacked a track record.

Challenges and barriers of delivery

Integrating the screening tool into the regular practice of domestic abuse charities was initially challenging, as they were already required to collect a lot of information from their clients and felt reluctant to ask more questions. This was overcome by reducing the number of questions initially required, and by carefully integrating the screening questions into existing practices:

…they had their own internal challenges and we just had to find a way of integrating this response into the existing practice and constraints that existed.

There was some initial resistance to the training among some participants, which was quickly overcome when they realised it would be useful for them.

Outcomes and impact

A total of 288 women were screened for economic abuse by partner organisations and a total of 209 women were supported, surpassing the target. Overall, CS4 trained 10 debt services, including over 50 professionals across money/debt sectors.

CS4 believe the impact of the work that started with the TTF funding has been far-reaching. The screening tool has been incorporated into domestic abuse charities’ routine practices and they have seen a significant increase in the number of debt write-offs and the speed of response for victims of economic abuse. CS4 felt their research contributed evidence that has culminated in significant policy changes, such as the recognition of economic abuse in the Domestic Abuse Act and the inclusion of economic abuse in the Financial Conduct Authority’s Code of Conduct:

Through legislation, and related policy, it had huge impact in the way that we wouldn’t have thought at the very beginning, in terms of practice…that ability to take quite informal ways of asking for debt to be written off and to turn that into a formal mechanism, which has created more consistency for victims and survivors.

Looking ahead

CS4 has continued to work on the same issues with other funding and through its partners. This has included scaling up the approach beyond the three pilot boroughs, adapting the approach to different systems in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and providing training for around 1,000 professionals every year. The organisation has grown hugely since 2017, and they recognise that TTF funding has been a game changer in this respect:

That grant was a small amount of money, but it was a gamechanger for [CS4].

3.6.5 Case Study Five (TTF 2020/2021 funding round)

Case Study Five (CS5) is a grant-making charity funding frontline women’s organisations working to make the UK a fairer, safer place for women and girls. CS5 was awarded funds for the UK Women’s Fund project. The project is delivered in partnership with other organisations and involves onward grants and capacity building workshops for 70 women’s sector organisations that work to improve the financial resilience and mental health of women in marginalised communities.

Bid design and application experience

CS5 and their partner organisations put in a joint application to avoid competing with each other. They found the application process to be very onerous, requiring a lot of staff time to provide granular, and sometimes repetitive, information. They were asked to reduce the amount of funding requested, which required further time to rewrite parts of the bid:

The process that’s set up is worth it if you get the funding, but I think if you put all that work into it and weren’t successful, you might have a different opinion of it.

On the other hand, they found TTF staff to be supportive during the application process. CS5 applied for multiple rounds, but did not feel that they learned from one application to the next, as the purpose, outputs and expected outcomes were different each time.

Delivery experience and progress

The project was on track as planned. CS5 made grants of between £15,000 and £40,000 to 70 organisations. An additional £10,000 grant for ‘organisational development’ was taken up by all grantees. Grants were awarded in August 2021, allowing approximately 16 months for implementation. Interim reports suggested that grantees were on track with spending and activities.

Intervention: Onward grants

The 70 onward grantees were selected from 665 applicants. They engaged other organisations, such as an organisation working with Black and minority women, to provide feedback on the application form, publicise the grants and sit on the assessment panel. CS5 funded a broad range of organisations providing services and activities directly to beneficiaries, such as enhanced employability, improved housing and help to overcome crises.

Intervention: Workshops for grantees

Workshops were offered to onward grantees at the beginning and end of the funding cycle, as a way to improve project delivery and build capacity in the women’s sector. CS5 consulted with onward grantees to identify topics of interest, including governance, financial management and monitoring and evaluation. The workshops were online, as the onward grantees were based across the UK.

Successes and facilitators of delivery

This was the first time CS5 and their partner organisation had worked together, and the partnership worked very well:

At all levels of grant management, the organisations worked really well together.

They felt that the selection process was robust and fair, facilitated by good chairing of the assessment panel:

The panel was presented with quite a lot of information, and I thought the Chair did a really good job of taking everybody through that, and getting to the decisions that needed to be taken, also involving the different partners that were on the panel in those decisions.

The workshops for onward grantees were well attended, and the feedback was very positive. Onward grantees reported that the workshops provided a good space to network, even though they were online. An important factor in the success of the workshops was the recruitment of a very good facilitator with experience in the women’s sector.

Challenges and barriers of delivery

CS5 found the time for the onward grant-making cycle too short. This had a knock-on effect for onward grantees, who had a short timeframe to implement their projects and some difficulties recruiting for short-term roles. They also felt frustrated not to have time to carry out ‘genuine’ co-design and co-production with partner organisations:

We worked really hard, to make sure that we could … get the funding out the door as quickly as possible, while still following a full and robust process … we did achieve that, … but there was a lot of thought that went into how we would do that in the beginning.

They found the 6% for Fund administration stipulated by TTF to be insufficient. The partner organisation used some of their endowment to cover costs, while CS5 used funds from their unreserved core funding.

Outcomes and impact

CS5 believe, based on interim reports, that onward grantees have helped marginalised women attain greater financial resilience and mental health. They also believe they have helped increase organisational capacity among onward grantees, and that this has helped their grantee secure other funding.

Several unplanned outcomes were identified. These included some grantees getting access to additional funding they may not otherwise have known about, and increased confidence of CS5 in advocating for the women’s sector. CS5 also noted that the positive relationships formed with their partner organisation will encourage future collaborative bids.

Looking ahead

Whether onward grantees will be able to continue with the activities undertaken with TTF funding will depend on whether they secure alternative funding. Most women’s sector organisations are highly dependent on external funding, and the end of TTF and of the National Lottery Community Fund’s Women and Girls Initiative around the same time will have a big impact on the sector: CS5 staff believe that some women’s organisations will not survive.

3.6.6 Case Study Six (TTF 2021/2022 funding round)

Case Study Six (CS6) is a national charity working to break down barriers to female participation in sports. The charity was awarded TTF funding in 2021 for the Big Sister project. The project was set up to test approaches to address the drop-off in physical activity among girls aged 9–15 in socially deprived areas in three pilot areas of England.

Bid design and application experience

The project tested different approaches to understand and overcome the barriers to physical activity faced by girls in socially deprived communities around the time of puberty:

… the drop-off of girls going into activity once they leave school is really high, and that could be based on their wider lives, for example whether they’ve got family commitments.

They found the guidance and criteria set out by DCMS to be clear and helpful and, although the application form was long, it helped them be clear on their outputs and outcomes from the start.

Delivery experience and progress

At the time of the case study research, project delivery was ongoing. It was delivered in partnership with three other organisations, one which provided bespoke physical activities for girls; one which undertook community engagement; and one, which provided free sanitary products. Overall, CS6 felt delivery was going well and that they were on target against the majority of their key performance indicators.

Frontline services

CS6 worked with an organisation to make their leisure centres attractive to girls and to design bespoke workouts for them. The girls were initially eligible for free membership at leisure centres. CS6 also developed recorded workouts on an app that could be used at home. Another organisation worked with community organisations to understand the barriers facing girls and to promote the programme.

Provision of supplies

Free single-use sanitary products were on display in reception, changing rooms and toilets at leisure centres and free for anyone to take. Reusable sanitary products were distributed in the community to girls who are enrolled on the programme. CS6 also provided period education workshops and a period pocket guide to help girls understand how to use the sanitary products.

Training

Training was provided to leisure centre staff and community leaders to help them understand the barriers girls face in undertaking physical activity, as well as how to address those barriers. So far, training has been face-to-face during the day. There were also plans to provide training to staff in schools.

Successes and facilitators of delivery

There was high uptake from girls taking out free memberships, so much so that the period of free membership was reduced from six to three months in order to reach more girls within budget. Uptake of free sanitary products was high, and the educational workshops were well received. Facilitators of success have included the strong engagement in communities strong collaboration among the partners.

Challenges and barriers of delivery

The biggest challenge to delivery was the low uptake of training. CS6 understood that barriers to participation included the timing of the workshops, distance to travel and potential participants believing they would not learn anything new. CS6 tested alternative delivery models, such as online and pre-recorded sessions and e-modules, and worked to improve messaging on the training content. Uptake of the recorded workouts on the app was also low. Feedback from some of the girls suggested this was because in-person workouts are an important opportunity for social interaction.

Outcomes and impact

CS6 hoped that evaluation activities planned for the beginning of 2023 would show that the project increased physical activity among the target group, and whether free sanitary products contributed to this. They reported that they already saw a change in the way the leisure centres interacted with girls, and a change in the perception of leisure centres among girls. They also believed that the diversity of girls using the leisure centres increased:

What the very early findings are showing is the stigma of leisure centres in those particular sites has now changed, and girls are actually seeing them as a really important place, and safe space to go to.

Looking ahead

CS6 is planning a round table with prospective funders who have expressed interest in supporting the model in the three pilot locations when TTF funding ends. If they do not secure future funding, they believe that the leisure centres will continue to use what they have learned to attract girls. There has been a lot of interest from local councils and leisure centres in other locations, and CS6 are developing a ‘Guide to Adopting Big Sister’, which will be disseminated throughout their networks:

Councils have seen it happening in other districts, and have seen the success of it, of the feedback that they’ve had.

3.6.7 Case Study Seven (TTF 2016/2017 funding round)

Case Study Seven (CS7) is a research charity with a mission to help prevent ovarian cancer through scientific research and awareness raising. The TTF funded project in the 2016/2017 funding round consisted of a genetic screening research pilot and a public awareness raising programme.

Bid design and application experience

CS7’s bid design sought to contribute to the evidence base on the genetic mutations linked to ovarian cancer and to raise awareness of the risks of these mutations:

The issue was around the fact that there’s a thousand cases of ovarian cancer every year, which are linked to genetic mutations, which are hereditary, and therefore with the right intervention, could be prevented.

CS7 were also successful in receiving funding in 2021. They felt insufficient support was provided in in 2016 compared to their experience in 2021:

There was no application form, there wasn’t any guidance, we just were told essentially to put a bid in because … we had made a complaint about the way the first round of funding had been handled, because there was no open process to it.

CS7 felt the application process improved over time, with better guidance and improved transparency.

Delivery experience and progress

CS7 partnered with other organisations to help delivery. CS7 worked primarily with Imperial College London (ICL) to deliver the pilot and local BRCA (BReast CAncer gene) organisations to deliver the awareness raising campaign. The research strand ended after the funding period, but data analysis was ongoing at the time of writing. For the raising awareness strand, a new cancer awareness officer role was created at CS7, which then drove the subsequent outreach and campaign activities.

Intervention: Awareness raising programme

Campaigns involved educating on the genetic risks of ovarian cancer, as well as campaigning for the NHS to adopt testing for it. CS7 partnered with other organisations involved in gene mutation work to help with delivery. A Prevention Officer role was created to implement these campaigns.

Intervention: Research

The focus of the pilot was to test for genetic mutations in women linked to ovarian cancer. ICL were largely left to manage and conduct the research independently. They had monthly catch-ups with CS7 and received an annual written report to monitor progress:

We award the grant, the experts do the work, and they do progress reports back to us, but we’re not actively involved in the day-to-day management of it at all.

Initially, a high number of women needed to be recruited for the research, and CS7 were involved in this. They encouraged sign-up through advertisements on their social media channels.

Successes and facilitators of delivery

Recruitment of women to the research pilot was felt to be a success, as a higher number of people were recruited than expected. The relationships CS7 formed with the BRCA partners were also felt to be positive and long-lasting, enabling successful delivery:

It enabled us to get under the skin of the different groups, and find out how we could help them, and how they could help us. They were very positive partnerships, which are still fruitful today, as a result of the Tampon Tax Funding.

Challenges and barriers of delivery

A key challenge was engaging other organisations in outreach activities, including Jewish community organisations, as the risk of ovarian cancer is higher by a factor of 10 in the Jewish community compared to the general population:

When we were first starting out, they [Jewish community organisations] weren’t particularly interested in working with us, so that was a challenge, in terms of working with a high-risk minority group.

Outcomes and impact

As a result of the project, CS7 felt they had contributed to the evidence base of genetic mutations for ovarian cancer and that they had therefore contributed to an improved process for diagnosing patients. CS7 felt there was an increase in public awareness around genetic risks as a result of polling activities they carried out with the public.

Looking ahead

After TTF funding finished, activities continued through CS7’s core funding. CS7 are confident they will receive more funding in the future due to sector interest in genetic cancer prevention.

3.6.8 Case Study Eight (TTF 2021/2022 funding round)

Case Study Eight (CS8) is a charity working mainly with children and educators to encourage the safe use of technology. CS8 was awarded TTF funding in the 2021/2022 funding round to develop a new digital AI tool named Minerva. The aim of the new tool was to provide support to women and girls who have experienced intimate image abuse and other online abuse.

Bid design and application experience

CS8 applied for TTF funding with the aim of creating an AI tool that bridged their two existing helplines, targeting victims of revenge porn and providing a place to report harmful online content. It was felt that the new digital tool, Minerva, would address the gaps in the service provided by the helplines and allow for online and offline abuse to be reported in one place. The digital tool would also help create a bank of data to help identify patterns of abuse and signpost victims to relevant services:

We very much saw it as an opportunity to elevate and move along our service and bring together the work of the two helplines that we have.

The development of the bid and of Minerva was built on prior research and acquired industry knowledge. The bid was developed internally, along with the help of an external consultant’s expertise. Overall, the bid writing process was found to be onerous due to repetition in places.

Delivery experience and progress

At the time of the case study research, delivery of CS8’s project was ongoing and the beta testing stage for Minerva had started. Overall, the organisation felt on track to deliver as planned following some adjustments to budget spend and an extension of the initial research phase timeline.

Apps and technology: Digital Chat box (Minerva)

CS8 worked closely with partners to deliver the project, including a tech development partner to develop the AI function and other tool features, and a research partner (the University of Sussex) to conduct workshops with practitioners and victim survivors exploring the user experience of the tool.

Successes and facilitators of delivery

Early successes included strong partnership working internally and externally, particularly with the tech development partner. CS8 found it a valuable learning experience that would inform future work.

CS8 were confident in the usability of the digital tool and felt this was a result of the experience and expertise of the tech development partner:

The demonstrations that we’ve had, it just feels really accessible, and I think it’s that expertise that the tech team have brought.

Overall, CS8 felt that they could overcome challenges to delivery due to their careful contingency planning at the bid design stage:

I think that planning, which took several months to get everything set up, probably was a really, really important time to make sure that the rest of it ran a bit more smoothly later on.

Challenges and barriers to delivery

Striking a balance that enhanced the efficacy of the AI element of the tool while meeting data protection requirements was challenging:

It’s that balance between how can we provide something that helps with support, but also how can we keep people’s data and privacy locked as much as possible. It’s a real challenge.

A lack of sector knowledge and technological terminology resulted in some communication challenges between CS8 and the tech partner:

There’s a language difference there that we’ve had to overcome.

Outcomes and impact

CS8 activities for the development of Minerva were ongoing at the time of research, so it was felt to be too early to comment on outcomes. However, CS8 felt they will achieve their aims of reducing incidents of abuse and enabling victims to recognise abusive situations at an early stage.

Looking ahead

CS8 will seek future funding to further develop and maintain Minerva after TTF funding has ended. Their plans to develop the tool include widening the target audience to include under-18s. They would also like to develop the tool for evidence collection, which would include working more closely with the police, to use evidence from the tool in the case of prosecutions:

We put it together knowing that there would be more, because although it was a significant amount of money that we were given for the project, we know that there are more things that we want to do and that the project can evolve further.

Appendix 4: Findings from government stakeholder and unsuccessful applicant interviews

In this appendix, findings are presented from interviews held with five members of government staff involved in the TTF bidding and delivery processes, as well as from interviews with staff members from three organisations that submitted unsuccessful applications to the Fund. The experiences and perceptions of both groups are used to identify lessons for future funds.

4.1 Introduction to interviews with government stakeholders

This section presents evidence gathered in interviews with government staff involved in TTF bidding and delivery processes. The purpose was to understand their perceptions and experiences during, and their reflections on, the design and delivery of the Fund, and to identify key lessons for future funding. The topics covered during the interviews included Fund design, application assessment and selection processes, Fund management and perceptions of achievement of the Fund’s objectives.

4.2 Methodology

Interviews were conducted with five members of staff from two UK government departments and one department of a devolved administration. Each interview lasted approximately 60 minutes. DCMS provided a list of potential interviewees, from which Kantar Public selected to ensure a mix of participants from across the UK with different roles in the Fund over different periods of the Fund’s operation. DCMS was not informed of the final sample composition in order to preserve anonymity for interviewees.

All interviewees were involved in different elements of delivering the Fund, including Fund oversight, financial support and administrative support. The earliest involvement of any of the interviewees was 2018, so the analysis pertains to recent years of the Fund. No interviewees were involved in Fund inception and design, as that research primarily took place in the scoping phase. Two were involved in the selection process – one in 2020, the other in 2021. Due to the short engagement of interviewees directly involved with the Fund (between eight and 16 months), none had a view on changes to the Fund over time. The following limitations should be noted.

The sample size is small and therefore the views received cannot be generalised across all government staff involved in the Fund.

Interviewees from only one devolved administration were included in the sample, so their experience may vary from staff in other devolved administrations.

There may be recall bias in the recollections of our interviewees, particularly involving earlier rounds.

Interviewees were mainly involved in Fund oversight and openly acknowledged that they did not know all the details of day-to-day Fund administration.

4.3 Findings from interviews with government stakeholders

4.3.1 Fund design

The broad remit of the Fund facilitated responsive grant-making and a diverse portfolio, but also had drawbacks. Guidance for the 2021/2022 funding round stated that ‘The purpose of the TTF is to allocate the funds generated from the VAT on sanitary products to projects that improve the lives of disadvantaged women and girls’. This broad remit remained the same across all years, although annual themes (for example music for carers, childcare and parenting) provided further specification, alongside a ‘general’ category and a violence against women and girls category each year.

The breadth of this remit brought several benefits. One was that staff found it provided a lot of flexibility in grantee selection, allowing them to assemble a diverse set of grantees and projects each year:

It had a lot of flexibility and positive elements that some restricted grant funds don’t have. [It] touched on a broad array of girls’ and women’s issues.

– Government stakeholder interview participant

Another benefit was the ability to be responsive to the needs articulated by grassroots organisations:

[We] could be very responsive to the problems coming through from … organisations in the know, rather than being top-down…

– Government stakeholder interview participant

One interviewee also felt that the specification of annual themes brought the additional benefit that funding was provided to some niche organisations, such as organisations working with music for female carers:

There were quite niche projects that would have really struggled to find funding elsewhere.

– Government stakeholder interview participant

Interviewees also observed some drawbacks to the broad remit of the Fund. One noted that this made it difficult to specify expected outcomes for the Fund. This, in turn, made it harder to demonstrate impact, and could make it harder to make the case for continued funding for projects benefiting disadvantaged women and girls in the UK:

…if you wanted to have ongoing funding for women’s and girls’ issues…you would need to be able to make a strong value for money case to the Treasury…and we needed greater focus to be able to do that.

– Government stakeholder interview participant

Interviewees also recognised that intentional measures ensured that large and small organisations could receive funds. The minimum value of a grant varied over the years. For some of the Fund life, it was set at £1 million, although this was brought down to £350,000 in the 2021/2022 funding round to enable smaller organisations to apply in line with financial criteria. The £1 million minimum was reportedly set in order to limit the costs of administration, which would be higher based on a larger number of grantees.

As a proposal value could not exceed 50% of the applicants’ annual income, the high minimum grant value inherently put larger organisations at an advantage. This bias was mitigated by several measures. First, DCMS encouraged consortia to apply to enable smaller organisations to partner and together meet the annual income threshold. Second, Fund rules stipulated that around 50% of the annual Fund value should be allocated to organisations providing onward funding of much lower value:

The idea was always that it would be about half … to onward funders … so that they could provide much smaller grants than we were able to manage internally.

– Government stakeholder interview participant

It was said that the flexibility to spend the grant across 12 to 24 months also helped smaller organisations that might not have been able to absorb and spend the whole grant within one year.

4.3.2 Selection process

The selection process and criteria were generally considered to be fit for purpose and ensured that grantees with the capacity to deliver were selected.

The annual selection process followed the following steps:

1. The selection criteria and scoring matrix were set out.

2. Assessors from relevant government departments and in the devolved administrations were selected and trained.

3. The TTF team established which applications met the eligibility criteria.

4. Assessors reviewed and scored all eligible applications; an expert panel assessed eligible applicants, looked at the overall balance in the portfolio (including allocations across the UK devolved administrations in line with the Barnett formula[^1] where 6% of the Fund was allocated to Wales, 3.5% of the Fund was allocated to Northern Ireland, and 10.5% was allocated to Scotland) and made a final recommendation for ministerial approval.

5. Fund staff worked to ensure all due diligence processes were conducted before awards were made.

The interviewees involved in selection believed that the consistent approach to selection and assessment enabled them to select the most capable grantees best able to deliver on their plans:

There was [sic] always strong applications to choose from, and the funds always ended up with good organisations that could deliver and did deliver.

– Government stakeholder interview participant

The main challenge for staff involved was the volume of work involved in selecting a small number of direct grantees from a large number of applicants:

It’s a very time-consuming process … I do remember it being a significant piece of work for the team.

– Government stakeholder interview participant

Table 11: Number of applications received and grants awarded

Funding round	Applications received	Grants awarded
2021/2022	186	14
2020/2021	140	12
2019/2020	143	10
2018/2019	195	11
2017/2018	Information not available	70
2016/2017	Information not available	20

DCMS sought to create a balanced portfolio of direct grantees, although this was challenging with a limited number of awards. Interviewees involved in assessment reported that they were keen to reach a balanced and diverse annual portfolio of direct grantees. The considerations that informed portfolio selection included:

• around 50% of Fund value allocated to organisations making onward grants

• a roughly equal split across the annual theme and general and VAWG themes

• inclusion of some specialist women’s organisations

• inclusion of some organisations with matched funding

• proportional split across the four devolved administrations using the Barnett formula

While interviewees noted that these guidelines were useful in achieving a diverse portfolio, they faced a number of challenges to ensuring diversity and balance within a small portfolio (they were involved at a time when the minimum grant value was £1 million, such that the maximum number of direct grantees was 15). First, they found it challenging to satisfy all the criteria:

Essentially it was a bit of a puzzle piece kind of exercise in those panels, in terms of hitting the right numbers of themes across the right regions.

– Government stakeholder interview participant

Second, a potential drawback was that some of the best applicants might have been ruled out while adhering to the criteria:

You could have two really great projects, but if they were similar … and covered similar regions … they became competitors to each other.

– Government stakeholder interview participant

Third, the adherence to the Barnett formula (6% of the Fund allocated to Wales, 3.5% of the Fund allocated to Northern Ireland and 10.5% allocated to Scotland), combined with a high minimum grant value, often meant each of the devolved administrations could receive only one grant each year, focused solely in the devolved administration. However, funding could still be accessed through UK-wide projects.

4.3.3 Fund management

The TTF team developed good relationships with direct grantees.

Day-to-day grant administration was handled by a team of between one and three staff at DCMS. This was felt to be sufficient to administer the grants, including routine contact with direct grantees around reporting, occasional site visits, informal support when needed and - grantee networking calls. Overall, interviewees felt they were able to develop and maintain good relationships with grantees:

The fact that we have [grant-making] expertise means that we … have good relationships with our grantees and there’s good dialogue.

– Government stakeholder interview participant

One interviewee nevertheless felt that engagement with direct grantees was more limited than in other grant-making settings they had been involved in; their perception was that this was due to a smaller team size and limited capacity.

4.3.4 Perceptions of the impact of the Fund

Interviewees believed the Fund had a significant impact on the voluntary and community sector (VCS), based on anecdotal evidence.

Interviewees generally felt that Fund objectives were met in terms of providing funding to a broad range of organisations working on diverse issues faced by disadvantaged women and girls. The onward grants were highlighted as an effective way to ensure that funds reached smaller organisations that were often unable to access the large grants available directly from government:

Lots of organisations had the opportunity to access really quite small pots of money … it meant there was really widespread impact.

–Government stakeholder interview participant

It was noted that running the Fund in-house at low cost ensured that most of the tax revenue from sales of sanitary products reached grantee organisations.

Interviewees were less certain whether grantees generated their expected project-level outcomes and impact. Interviewees from UK government departments had anecdotal evidence from meetings with grantees, site visits and some case studies and reports, which led them to believe the Fund had helped improve outcomes for a broad range of disadvantaged women and girls. Interviewees were nevertheless aware of the limits to their knowledge of outcomes achieved with the funding:

Ultimately, it was having an overall positive impact but, in comparison to other government programmes I’ve worked on, I would have found it harder to really articulate what that looked like on the ground. I’m sure it did do good, but that’s more instinctive than I’d probably like it to be.

– Government stakeholder interview participant

One interviewee stated that this was partly due to limited staff time to analyse information in direct grantee reports in earlier years of the Fund. They felt that, in future, it would be good to be “more evidence focused”, with capacity in the team for ongoing analysis:

[I] would have given more thought to the reporting we were asking for, but also wanted more resources and capacity to be able to properly assess the reporting and review it.

– Government stakeholder interview participant

They also felt the lack of prespecified expected outcomes made it more difficult to understand the aggregate impact of the Fund:

The aims of the Fund were so broad that I didn’t ever feel like there was really valuable evaluation or tangible data outcomes to be gathered from it, because we hadn’t explicitly said what we wanted the outcomes to look like.

– Government stakeholder interview participant

Another interviewee commented that the broad remit of the Fund and the lack of predetermined outcomes meant they felt there was no obvious ‘home’ for the Fund.

…it often felt siloed and didn’t obviously sit within departments … in a coherent way … [I wonder] whether that … ended up … impacting how much the Fund was able to achieve.

– Government stakeholder interview participant

4.3.5 Devolved administration involvement in the TTF

Interviewees from a devolved administration found interactions with DCMS to be open and helpful, but would welcome increased involvement in final grantee selection of UK-wide projects. They received the applications and were given the opportunity to comment on all projects, but ultimately felt that funding decisions had already been made. One of the interviewees had requested more involvement in the most recent funding round, where they assessed and scored all eligible applications delivering solely in their country. Increased engagement was appreciated, and they found DCMS staff to be very open and helpful:

…we’ve had more engagement with DCMS than in previous years…we had the opportunity to comment on whether we thought the bids would be helpful in…the context of our strategy. We have felt more engaged…but I do think that’s about individual officials being able to have conversations … you find helpful officials but sometimes UK government and devolved administrations don’t see eye to eye…

– Government stakeholder interview participant

The interviewees from the devolved administration appealed for the more meaningful engagement in future funds. They also recognised that they could have engaged more with the process:

…we could have done more from our side too…ask more questions and lobby for ourselves…make sure we completely understand the aims and objectives…there are things we could do better too.

– Government stakeholder interview participant

4.3.6 Lessons learned

1. A more focused remit in future funds will make it easier to evaluate impact. This is important when demonstrating the value of a fund and makes it easier to justify continued funding for a given theme or target group. A more focused remit also makes it easier for organisations to understand eligibility from one funding round to the next. Focus needs to be balanced with the ability to be responsive to the needs demonstrated by local and grassroots organisations.

2. Ensure adequate resources are available for the selection processes, particularly where broad eligibility criteria result in a large pool of applicants.

3. Strive to find an appropriate balance between the costs of running a fund and sufficient interaction with grantees. In some sectors, higher costs may be justified by the potential to strengthen grantee impact and use learning from projects to strengthen policy making.

### 4.4 Introduction to interviews with unsuccessful applicants

This section presents evidence gathered in interviews with organisations that submitted unsuccessful applications for TTF funding. The purpose was to understand their experience of the application process and how it could be improved from their perspective. The topics covered included the project for which funding was sought, experience of the application process, communications from DCMS following the unsuccessful application and the consequences of not receiving funding.

4.5 Methodology

Interviews were conducted with staff members from three organisations that had applied multiple times to the Fund. Each had received a grant at least once (in 2017, 2018 and/or 2019), and been unsuccessful at least once (in 2016, 2020 or 2021). The interviews lasted 45 to 60 minutes.

DCMS provided a list of potential interviewees, from which Kantar selected to ensure a mix of different types of organisation that had been unsuccessful in different funding rounds. DCMS was not informed of the final sample composition in order to preserve anonymity for interviewees. Six other organisations were approached, but did not reply to the request for an interview within the fieldwork timeframe. One interviewee cancelled due to ill health.

The organisations were mixed in terms of geographic scope, size, type of service provided and target population.

Geographic scope: One was national in scope; the others provided services locally.

Size: Two were small organisations; one was a large national charity.

Type of service: One had a broad focus on community wellbeing; the others were focused on mental health and VAWG.

Target population: One was a specialist women’s organisation; the other two worked with the general population.

Dedicated fundraiser: One of the applications was prepared by a dedicated fundraiser; the other two were prepared by staff with multiple roles.

The following limitations should be noted.

The sample size was small, so the views received cannot be generalised to other unsuccessful applicants.

There may be recall bias in the recollections of interviewees, more so in relation to earlier rounds.

We only spoke with organisations that also received funding in a different year; data sharing arrangements meant consent had not been provided for applicants who had never been successful to be re-contacted.

4.6 Findings from interviews relating to unsuccessful grant applications

4.6.1 Overview of proposed projects

The projects were mixed in terms of intervention, value, target groups and partnership working.

Intervention types: Two included frontline work with women at risk of or surviving violence; one included training for professionals who may come into contact with at-risk women; and one included research to establish and disseminate a good practice framework.

Value: One was small (around £100,000); two were large (around £1 million).

Beneficiary groups included women at risk of abuse, violence and exploitation; migrant women survivors of domestic abuse; and young women with mental health issues.

Two involved partnership working; one did not.

4.6.2 Experience of the application process

The information and guidance provided by DCMS was generally clear to applicants.

One interviewee who applied in the first two rounds of the Fund (2016/2017 and 2017/2018) noted that no formal guidance had been provided. The process was, however “pretty relaxed”, and DCMS staff provided guidance on request. From the 2018/2019 funding round onwards, the information and guidance provided by DCMS was generally found to be clear, and those who sought additional information from DCMS staff found them to be helpful:

The questions were good. We could build our grant around the questions.

– Unsuccessful applicant interview participant, 2017/18

The deadline for asking questions was sometimes felt to be difficult to observe for smaller organisations, which might prepare an application with fewer resources than larger organisations:

…you know if you get something even slightly wrong…they’ll just disqualify you…its a very stressful process…you just have to guess, and you put all that time in just to find you made some silly mistake that you could have clarified quite easily.

– Unsuccessful applicant interview participant, 2016/17

Application requirements were generally considered to have become more onerous in recent years.

The application requirements for the first two rounds were found to be easy, as applicants were asked to send a proposal and budget:

You didn’t have to do any kind of grant application form, all I was asked to do was to write in [with] a proposal and our financial information and budgets…

– Unsuccessful applicant interview participant, 2016/17

However, from the third round (2018/2019) onwards, all applicants found the application process complex, with a long application form requiring a large volume of information and a large number of supporting documents. One noted that the online application template was difficult to manage. The requirements to detail outputs and the budget on a quarterly basis, and to split the budget across England and Wales, were found to add to the complexity and the time required to prepare the application.

Applicants found the application to require a significant amount of work compared to other funders they had applied to (for example, the Ministry of Justice and local governments). This posed challenges for the organisations – even for the largest organisation, which had a dedicated fundraiser:

The main thing to feedback…is the enormous amount of work that goes into these applications…they are enormously time-consuming.

– Unsuccessful applicant interview participant, 2018/19

The amount of work and time required had knock-on effects in smaller organisations without a dedicated fundraiser, as they had to postpone other work or move work over to colleagues:

You can’t do your other work…if you had other plans…other deadlines, you can’t meet them.

– Unsuccessful applicant interview participant, 2016/17

It was suggested that DCMS should consider providing the opportunity for an initial conversation to help potential applicants decide whether it was worth doing a lot of work to prepare an application. They recognised there may be reasons why this is difficult in a grant-making process.

For projects funded in the 2018/2019 and 2019/2020 funding rounds, it was also noted that the application period provided was short (six weeks) for developing a programme of work with a budget of over £1 million. One unsuccessful applicant felt the minimum grant value of £1 million in some rounds was problematic for smaller organisations, as writing a proposal with a partner organisation – which was required to meet the minimum 50% annual income threshold – added additional time.

One unsuccessful applicant (in the 2021/2022 round) had problems submitting their application online due to difficulty uploading the numerous supporting documents. It was noted that the fact the deadline occurred over a weekend added to the stress, as DCMS colleagues were not contactable.

4.6.3 Communications from DCMS about the unsuccessful application

DCMS feedback on unsuccessful applications was felt to be unsatisfactory across interviewees, and this constituted a common suggestion for improvement.

Applicants described difficulties getting information on whether they had been awarded funding, even when they searched online for information:

It was really hard to find out who had actually been awarded the money…I think we had to keep going on their website to work out who had been awarded it.

– Unsuccessful applicant interview participant, 2017/18

All applicants interviewed felt that the feedback they had received was very brief. It did not help them understand the reasons they had not been awarded funding, or how they could improve their applications:

…it was very limited…we got three sentences…it says this was an excellent application, it was clear and succinct,…but…it did not score as well as other applications. It would be really helpful to get [an] assessment of strengths and weaknesses.

– Unsuccessful applicant interview participant, 2018/19

I don’t think you got any information back [on] why you were unsuccessful, there was nothing, just that you were unsuccessful…It would be good to get feedback about why it wasn’t successful and how it could be improved ‘cos then you could bear that in mind for the next round.

– Unsuccessful applicant interview participant, 2016

As well as this, the assessment process was felt to be opaque. Interviewees stated that, in contrast to some other funders, DCMS did not provide the scoring matrix, making it hard to know the relative weighting across the criteria stated on the website. Some said the assessment process felt “mysterious”, or “secretive”:

…how do they…score it, what’s the matrix, there’s such a lot of unknowns, whereas with other bids and tenders you’ve got a whole matrix that you know what you’re scored against. In this it just goes into an abyss.

– Unsuccessful applicant interview participant, 2017/18

Interviewees noted they would like to receive their final scores, as well as those for successful applications, to help them improve their applications and make the assessment process more transparent. The lack of understanding on how applications were assessed led some interviewees to question the criteria used to make decisions and the perceived equity of the process overall. The relative weight given to quality and price was questioned, and interviewees hypothesised that low unit costs may have been favoured, giving larger organisations an advantage.

The ability of DCMS to assess the degree to which local projects met local needs was also queried. The department’s perceived lack of knowledge of local needs was contrasted with other national funders, such as the Ministry of Justice, which works through local Offices of the Police and Crime Commissioner, and the National Lottery Community Fund, which has relationships at the regional level.

The same interviewee wondered whether decisions were made largely based on the type of organisation (national and “by and for”^{[footnote 2]} organisations “tick more boxes”), or whether organisations that could present a good application were favoured over organisations with the capability to deliver a high-quality project:

It’s who you are as an organisation, would [you] tick their boxes…a bit more than what you’ve got to offer, and that might not be true, that’s just my thoughts on it…

– Unsuccessful applicant participant, 2017/18

4.6.4 Consequences of not receiving a grant for applicant organisations

Organisations had unique experiences of the effects of unsuccessful applications. One unsuccessful applicant received a TTF grant for a very similar project the following year after adapting their proposal to frame it as a pilot and adding more detailed plans for evaluating it. They stressed that the proposal was revised based on conversations with the Home Office – they had not received DCMS feedback on the first proposal that could have helped them to shape the subsequent proposal:

I don’t think you got any information back…I think we figured it out, we knew that we have to find something that would be attractive to them.

– Unsuccessful applicant interview participant, 2016/17

The other two organisations were able to implement small components of their unsuccessful proposals with limited funding from other sources.

4.6.5 Lessons learned

1. Allow applicants to ask clarifying questions throughout the application period, if this can be done within competition laws applicable to application processes.

2. Find ways to simplify application processes to avoid a heavy burden on applicants, which could potentially put some organisations off applying, particularly smaller organisations without dedicated fundraising staff. Measures that may help include requiring less detailed information and fewer supporting documents.

3. Allow sufficient time for the development of proposals between announcing a fund and the deadline for applications, particularly where the minimum proposal value is high.

4. Ensure that online application templates and submission processes work smoothly. Consider scheduling deadlines on weekdays to avoid applicant work and stress at the weekend.

5. Provide detailed feedback on unsuccessful applications to allow organisations to learn how they can strengthen their proposals and projects.

6. Be as transparent as possible about assessment processes so that applicants feel that decisions are fair. This may include providing the scoring matrix to applicants, and publishing scores and redacted successful proposals.

7. Ensure that the proposals from organisations working at a local or regional level can be fairly assessed. This can be facilitated by the intelligence provided by networks and organisations with sound local knowledge (for example the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner).

Appendix 5: Findings from the public data analysis

5.1 Introduction

This appendix outlines the methodology and findings from the public data analysis conducted as part of the TTF impact evaluation. The purpose of this analysis was to use Charity Commission data and published financial accounts to understand the reach and potential financial and network impacts of the Fund. The section is divided in three strands: descriptive, financial and network analysis.

5.2 Strand one: Direct grantee profiles

The first strand of the analysis aimed to assess the reach of TTF in terms of the characteristics of organisations funded and how they compare to the wider voluntary and community sector (VCS). To provide a reference point to the descriptive analysis, the wider VCS referred to comprises all organisations registered with CCEW, excluding direct grantees.

5.2.1 Methodology

Kantar Public downloaded the public register data extract from the CCEW website on 15 December 2022. Information about income and expenditure for Scottish and Northern Irish direct grantees was retrieved from the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) and the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland (CCNI). The sample of direct grantees comprised of 120 organisations receiving TTF funding in any of the six rounds held between 2016 and 2022: 103 from England and Wales, 12 from Scotland and five from Northern Ireland (including as members of consortia and excluding corporate bodies and housing associations). Data available for recipients registered in Scotland and Northern Ireland was limited, so most of the statistics correspond to England and Wales grantees only (unless specified).

The “wider voluntary and community sector (VCS)” sample comprised of 134,070 organisations. Starting with all the organisations in the public register of charities in England and Wales data extract, Kantar Public then excluded charities not reporting income since financial year (FY) 2016/2017; charities in administration or insolvent; subsidiaries linked to parent charities; charities no longer in the register (status “removed”); and Charitable Incorporated Organisations that are to be dissolved.

A challenge of this exercise is that the applicants receiving TTF funding were generally larger than other charities. For example, the latest income reports by charities in CCEW, OSCR and CCNI show over two-thirds of grantees had an income of at least £1 million, compared with only 5% of the charities in the wider VCS sample. This reflects the TTF eligibility criteria: for example, between the 2018/2019 and 2020/2021 cohorts, TTF bids had to be worth £1 million or above and could not account for more than 50% of the applicant’s annual income. To provide a clearer point of comparison for TTF recipients, the data was weighted for the wider VCS so it matched the profile of TTF recipients with respect to latest income reported (for all 120 direct grantees and 97% of the wider charity sample, this corresponds to FY 2019/2020 to 2021/2022) and area of operation (local, national/European, international).

The area of operation was based on the highest geographic level reported in CCEW (n = 103). Three categories were identified for the weighting, as follows: local charities are flagged as operating in metropolitan counties/local authorities, and not at national, European or international level; national/European charities are flagged as operating in England (including London), Wales or Europe, and not at international level; and international charities are flagged as operating in Africa, Asia, North and South America, Oceania or the Antarctic. The weighting aimed to ensure statistics for the wider VCS were based on organisations of similar size and scope to the direct grantees.

5.2.2 Summary of findings

TTF reached a variety of organisations in terms of size, duration and geographic scope. Around a third of grantees reported annual incomes of under £1 million, and a third reported incomes of over £5 million.

Organisations receiving TTF funding were larger than other charities registered in CCEW, which in part reflects the eligibility criteria for the Fund in terms of annual income.

TTF supported both well-established and more recent organisations. A quarter of grantees were registered in the Charity Commission over 40 years ago, and a quarter were registered in the past decade.

Three in five direct grantees operate throughout England and/or Wales. Just over a third operate at local authority and metropolitan county levels, while 29% operate in Europe.

Grantees were more likely to provide education, training, advocacy, advice and information, and to help “children and young people” and “other defined groups”, compared with charities of similar size and scope.

Table 12: Distribution of income and area of operation: Direct grantees vs weighted VCS

	Direct grantees (%)	Weighted VCS (%)
Latest reported income (n = 120)
<£500,000	15%	14%
£500,000 to £1m	14%	12%
£1m to £5m	39%	37%
>£5m	32%	36%
Area of operation (n = 103)
Local authorities and counties	36%	42%
Throughout London	12%	8%
Throughout England and/or Wales	60%	52%
Europe	29%	22%
Other continents	7%	17%

5.2.3 Findings: Details of direct grantee profiles

The income profile of the direct grantees was broad. According to the latest reports in the Charity Commission (England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland), 29% of direct grantees had an income under £1 million and 18% had an income of over £10 million. The level of expenditure of direct grantees largely followed their level of income, with a third reporting expenditure between £1 and £5 million. Two in three direct grantees owned or leased land or buildings, and 62% were registered for Gift Aid with HMRC. TTF reached both well-established and more recent organisations. A quarter of direct grantees were registered before 1980, and a quarter were registered in the 2010s – comparable to the profile of other charities of a similar size/scope (a third registered between the 1960s and 1980s, and a quarter registered in the 2010s).

Charities in England and Wales can select predefined geographic areas of operation in the CCEW register. Three in five direct grantees operate throughout England and/or Wales, just over a third operate internationally (primarily in Europe) and 36% operate at the local authority level. As part of their reporting duties, charities in England and Wales select predefined activity categories and who they support. Although the categories are broad, they provide an overview of organisational typology. Education/training was the most prevalent category for direct grantees (72%) and for other charities of similar size and scope (64%). Direct grantees were more likely to select “the advancement of health” and “generable charitable purposes” than similarly sized charities, but were less focused on “arts/culture”, “environment/conservation” and “recreation”.

Figure 7: Categories of “Who the charity helps” for direct grantees in the CCEW public register

Classification	TTF grantees %	Weighted charity sector %
Children/young People	59%	57%
Other Defined Groups	58%	25%
The General Public/mankind	47%	53%
People With Disabilities	42%	32%
Other Charities Or Voluntary Bodies	32%	27%
People Of A Particular Ethnic Or Racial Origin	24%	10%
Elderly/old People	0%	0%

Figure 8: Categories of “How the charity helps” for direct grantees in the CCEW public register

Classification	TTF grantees %	Weighted charity sector %
Provides Advocacy/advice/information	83%	42%
Provides Services	80%	61%
Sponsors Or Undertakes Research	35%	23%
Provides Buildings/facilities/open space	25%	35%
Acts As An Umbrella Or Resource Body	24%	15%
Makes Grants To Organisations	21%	31%
Other Charitable Activities	20%	15%
Provides Human Resources	17%	22%
Makes Grants To Individuals	9%	22%
Provides Other Finance	1%	5%

The main support offered by direct grantees was “advocacy, advice and information” (83%) and “services” (80%) – both much more common types of support than among other charities of a similar size/scope (42% and 61% respectively). Direct grantees were most commonly categorised as supporting “children and young people” and “other defined groups”, while other similarly sized charities more commonly focused on the “general public”. This could reflect TTF reaching organisations with a focus on women and girls.

5.3 Strand two: Financial analysis

In line with the logic model assumption that TTF improved the access of organisations to resources, the second strand of the public data analysis explored trends in income and types of expenditure for recipients of TTF grants, and whether these were associated with TTF funding.

5.3.1 Methodology

CCEW provided financial data for charities in England and Wales from 2012, including income by source and expenditure by type, extracted on request as only the last five years reports are publicly available. This was combined with publicly available data about the characteristics of charities from the CCEW website, and published accounts for direct grantees to identify the amount of funding reported each year. This approach was taken because organisations have different financial reporting periods and often apply for funding split over several years. Hence, the number of organisations reporting TTF funding in their accounts in any year is not the same as the number of successful applicants for that year. In a few cases, Kantar Public could not identify TTF funding in an organisation’s accounts, so the funding was split equally across the years projects were set to be delivered.

Table 13: Number of successful applicants and number reporting TTF funding in their accounts

Year*	Successful TTF applicants	Grantees receiving TTF funding (England and Wales only)
2017	20	20
2018	66	52
2019	10	51
2020	10	46
2021	12	15
2022	14	6

*For the successful applicants, the year corresponds to the end of the financial year cohort: in other words, 2017 corresponds to FY 2016/2017.

Kantar Public ran a series of multilevel regression models to explore how TTF funding has been associated with changes in an organisation’s income and expenditure types. The regression models had year fixed effects to account for any observed and unobserved factors that vary over time and affect all charities equally. The variable of interest was the TTF funding flag showing a charity received TTF funding in that year. The outcome variables (income and expenditure) were log transformed, so the output can be interpreted as the proportional change in income (or expenditure) associated with receiving TTF grant funding that year.

Kantar Public included financial data up to 2021, as most organisations were yet to submit accounts for year ending 2022. We also excluded charities with incomes below £34,650, as these were generally far smaller organisations than those receiving TTF funding. This threshold was taken from the lowest income reported by a direct grantee when they received the grant, as a proxy for TTF income eligibility.

5.3.2 Summary of findings

The change in financial criteria for applying to TTF was reflected in the size of grantees, where median incomes ranged from just under £1 million in 2016/2017 to £9.4 million in 2019/2020.

The size of organisations varied widely within cohorts, particularly before the minimum bid amount was introduced. The 2017/2018 cohort had the largest number of successful applicants and the biggest variation, with annual reported gross income ranging from £34,650 to £304 million.

For many recipients, TTF funding made a substantial income contribution: a third received TTF funding representing 11% to 50% of the annual gross income in that year.

Smaller direct grantees (with the highest proportion of grant to annual gross income) had on average a larger increase in income after receiving TTF funding compared with bigger direct grantees.

There was evidence that the gross income of direct grantees was on average 12% higher in years when they received TTF funding than would otherwise have been expected. Although this increase in income cannot be directly attributable to the TTF grant, it indicates that the resources available to these organisations were higher in years when they received TTF funding.

There was evidence that direct grantees spent 14% more on governance in the years they received TTF funding than would have been expected without it. This indicates that the additional resources could have contributed to strengthening organisational systems/capacity.

5.3.3 Trends in income

Across the six years of TTF, grants were awarded to charities with a published annual gross income between £34,650 and £304 million. Figure 9 shows the median income for each TTF cohort in the year they were awarded (except for 2021/2022, for which income from 2021 was used where accounts for 2022 were not yet published).

Figure 9: Median income of TTF grantees by cohort

The size of direct grantees varied substantially between cohorts. For the first two (with no minimum size of TTF bids), the median annual income reported was around £1 million. From 2018 to 2019 funding period, a minimum bid was introduced for three years, which initially appears to have led to the Fund being limited to larger organisations with a median annual income of around £7.5 million for the 2018/2019 funding period and £9.4 million for the 2019/2020 funding period. Overall, the median income reported by direct grantees more than doubled after 2012 (see Figure 10), although this cannot be directly attributed to TTF as there are many other influencing factors.

Figure 10: Median gross income of all TTF grantees: 2012 to 2021

Figure 11 shows the share of grantees’ annual gross income accounted for by TTF funding, which represented less than 50% of gross income for nearly all grantees and reflected the application criteria. For many, TTF represented a substantial share of their financial resources – over 10% of annual income for over a third of direct grantees and over 20% for one in five. For those applying in consortia, the proportion was taken from the lead applicant’s gross income.

Figure 11: Proportion of annual gross income from TTF funding

% of gross income from TTF funding	Less than 5%	5-10%	11-20%	21-50%	More than 50%	Total
% of TTF grantees	44%	19%	16%	18%	3%	100%

Given the range of levels of income and the grant to income proportion across grantees, it might be expected that TTF’s effect on income and expenditure would vary based on the share of annual income the grant represents. Figures 12 and 13 show the trends in income and expenditure from 2012, grouping charities by size of grant with respect to their income.

Kantar Public calculated the average proportion of TTF funding to gross income across years for each charity and calculated the quartiles from this total average. The bottom quartile corresponds to charities with, on average, a grant payment below 2% of their income for that year; the top quartile corresponds to charities with, on average, a grant payment over 14% of their gross income for that year.

Figure 12: Average income of direct grantees by cohort and by TTF grant to income proportion: 2012 to 2021

Figure 13: Average income of direct grantees by cohort and by TTF grant to income proportion: 2012 to 2021

The charts show that, comparing the average gross income before the grant with the latest reported income (financial year 2020/2021), bigger recipients (bottom quartile of grant/income proportion) had a steady upward trend in gross income on average, while for smaller recipients this rate of growth was higher in the years after receiving the grant compared to the years before receiving it. Although this cannot be attributable directly to the TTF grant, it indicates that, for smaller charities, the grant represented additional income. This is in line with the Fund’s aim to provide additional funding to the VCS.

Using a multilevel regression model, Kantar Public estimated the annual gross incomes reported by charities, considering differences between years and available organisational characteristics (number of employees; whether they owned land and were registered for gift aid; and the types of charitable activity recorded). The models also accounted for whether the charity reported a TTF disbursement in their accounts for that year and, if so, which TTF cohort(s) they received funding for. Based on this model, the reported income of direct grantees was on average 12% higher in years when they received TTF funding than would have been predicted without it. This cannot be causally attributed to TTF, as many other differences between charities and years exist that cannot be accounted for in the model. However, it indicates the resources available were higher when they received funding than might have been expected.

5.3.4 Trends in expenditure

Kantar Public ran a series of multilevel regression models to estimate the average change in expenditure for organisations receiving TTF funding. These were very similar to the models predicting income, as in Section 5.3.3. As charities are only required to submit information on categories of expenditure when their income for that year exceeds £500,000, this analysis did not cover smaller organisations. The uncertainty was quite high for the estimates from these models, as shown in Figure 14.

Figure 14: Results of the expenditure and income multilevel regression models

These models provide some evidence that TTF grantees spent more on governance in years when they received TTF funding: on average, expenditure on governance was 14% higher than would be expected based on the charity’s expenditure in other years. There was no strong evidence that this increase was driven by organisations giving onward grants, so this finding indicates that the additional resources from TTF funding could have contributed to strengthening organisational systems and capacity.

5.4 Strand three: Network analysis

The third strand of the public data analysis aimed to assess the effect of the Fund on the wider VCS through onward grants and partnerships. It focused on two key elements: a financial network analysis using CCEW data, and triangulation with survey data on other types of collaboration between organisations. These analyses aimed at exploring two assumptions from the logic model: first, whether TTF funding was redistributed to smaller organisations via onward grants, and second, whether TTF contributed to improved partnerships and organisational linking within the VCS.

5.4.1 Methodology

For the financial network analysis, Kantar Public started with the 20 direct grantees for which DCMS shared complete onward grant data, then manually went through their available financial accounts from the last five years to retrieve information of all grants given to the institutions, including those that were not directly from TTF. Eight out of the 20 organisations had detailed onward grant information in their financial accounts and had published accounts for the relevant years of TTF funding. To explore the size and characteristics of the onward grantee sample, Kantar Public matched them to the CCEW data with information on the charities’ published accounts. This involved matching the names of onward grantees.

Approximately half of the onward grantees identified were matched to published accounts data. This was enough to give some indication of the characteristics of organisations receiving onward grants, even though it was not the complete picture. Organisations were not matched where accounts were not published at the time, where recipients were not registered charities (Community Interest Companies, private companies or voluntary organisations not registered with the Charity Commission), where the organisation name was recorded differently in onward grants and CCEW accounts or where the grant recipient was not registered in England or Wales. Kantar Public then randomly selected 100 onward grantees not successfully matched to CCEW data, and manually found data for 12 (this entailed searching different forms of their name in the Charity Commission website). This suggests that analysis of matched data covered most of the CCEW data at the time of writing.

For the second element of network analysis, Kantar Public focused on wider partnerships and networks. This entailed further analysis of the data from the TTF grantee survey, which included questions on partnerships and networks. The survey included insights relating to financial networks and other support, such as co-delivery of projects and sharing information. Respondents were also asked whether these were new or existing partnerships. The survey included questions about respondents’ perceptions of the effects of TTF on connections between organisations in the VCS. Full details of the methodology and questionnaire design for the survey can be found in Appendix 6.

5.4.2 Summary of findings

According to direct grantee reports, more than a third of the total amount awarded by TTF over its six years of operation was redistributed to other organisations through onward grants.

Although onward grants were on average small (with a median of £10,000), they made a sizeable contribution to onward grantees’ resources. For one in 10 onward grantees, the funding made up more than a quarter of their reported annual income for that year.

There was evidence that onward grants were successful in redistributing funding to small and medium organisations: the median annual gross income of onward grantees was around £300,000, considerably below the income reported by direct grantees (a median of £1.5 million).

Nevertheless, there remained a minority of onward grantees with relatively large incomes. For example, 8% of onward grantees were over the 2018/2019 funding period income threshold required to apply directly to funding, suggesting there is room for improvement in terms of targeting small and medium-sized organisations.

TTF enabled new financial connections to be made, and some were maintained after the end of TTF funding. The majority of onward grants reported (91%) were to new organisations (organisations that had not been reported previously in the accounts from FY 2016/2017), 24% of which were repeated at least one year after TTF funding.

These findings were in line with survey responses where direct grantees indicated that 78% of financial partnerships made since receiving the TTF grant had been with new organisations.

The majority of survey respondents (91%) reported collaborating with other organisations since receiving funding from TTF (either direct funding or through onward grants). Of these, 70% reported establishing partnerships for sharing information and learning.

The survey respondents expressed positive views about TTF’s impact on partnerships: 80% agreed/strongly agreed TTF had enabled successful collaborations and improved knowledge sharing; and almost 90% indicated a commitment to continue these collaborations post-funding.

5.4.3 Networks of onward grants

One model of TTF funding was onward grant-making, enabling larger organisations to redistribute funding as smaller grants to a wider set of organisations. As described in the logic model, this was one key mechanism through which the Fund could deliver positive impacts.

According to records provided by DCMS of onward grants that were part of TTF, since FY 2016/2017, 20 direct grantees distributed 1,622 onward grants to 1,230 organisations, with a total value of just over £30 million – more than a third of the total amount awarded by TTF over the six years it was active (£82.8 million).

These onward grants were typically small – the median value was around £10,000, with around 80% of onward grants being between £5,000 and £40,000. Just under half of all grants were distributed by a single organisation (UKCF). One in five onward grantees received multiple onward grants, some in different years, while others received multiple grants from different organisations in the same year.

Table 14: Number and values of TTF onward grants, by year*

	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023	Total
Number of orgs. giving grants	2	5	8	4	3	7	6	20
Number of onward grants	67	143	595	319	136	163	199	1,622
Number of orgs. receiving grants	66	140	555	313	136	149	197	1,230
Total value of onward grants	£2.63m	£2.32m	£9.66m	£4.90m	£3.02m	£4.49m	£3.04m	£30.06m
Median value	£25,000	£9,350	£9,500	£9,628	£9,882	£18,326	£10,000	£9,904
10th percentile	£8,436	£3,520	£5,000	£5,000	£5,460	£1,000	£2,500	£4,750
90th percentile	£115,815	£25,000	£25,000	£30,022	£50,000	£50,000	£26,424	£39,911

*The calendar year in which the accounting period where the grant was reported ends.

Although onward grants were small, they made a sizeable contribution to organisations resources. Of the onward grants matched to CCEW published accounts, one in 10 made up over 25% of an organisation’s reported income that year; for the median onward grantee, they made up just 4% of their income that year.

Table 15: Proportion of onward grantee annual income accounted for by a TTF onward grant

	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022	Total
Number of onward grants matched	33	65	291	182	77	11	659
Median proportion of income	21%	15%	3%	4%	4%	10%	4%
10th percentile	8%	1%	1%	1%	1%	< 1%	1%
90th percentile	58%	63%	18%	17%	18%	14%	25%

The aim of onward grants was to reach small and medium-sized organisations unable to access TTF themselves. Kantar Public investigated this dynamic in two ways: retrieving income data of the onward grantees and comparing this to the TTF eligibility criteria. These analyses suggest the onward grants were successful in redistributing funding to small and medium-sized organisations, with some scope for improved targeting.

First, Kantar Public looked at the reported income for the onward grantees, where this could be identified using the matching process in Section 8.5.1. Of those matched, the median income of onward grantees was around £300,000 (with around 80% of recipients reporting incomes between £45,000 and £1.4 million). This was considerably lower than the income reported by direct TTF recipients (a median of £1.5 million) and gives some indication that the onward grants were largely successful in redistributing funding to small and medium-sized organisations. However, a sizeable minority of onward grant recipients had relatively large incomes. For example, around 10% had annual incomes of over £1.4 million.

Table 16: Reported income of TTF onward grantees, by year

	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022	Total
Onward grants matched	33	65	291	182	77	11	659
Median income onward grantees	£149,598	£91,504	£325,170	£320,795	£404,297	£323,621	£297,558
10th percentile	£31,731	£21,260	£65,890	£58,666	£60,064	£161,084	£45,337
90th percentile	£484,466	£1,506,760	£1,404,837	£1,329,723	£3,244,090	£489,804	£1,407,973

Second, Kantar Public compared the reported incomes for onward grantees to the eligibility criteria for direct TTF funding. Between the 2018/2019 and the 2020/2021 cohorts, TTF guidance indicated a minimum grant of £1 million, which must not represent more than half their annual income. This implies organisations with annual incomes of over £2 million could have accessed TTF directly rather than through onward grants. Figure 15 shows that the vast majority of onward grantees were well below this threshold (only 8% were above). Larger organisations tended to receive larger grants – around 18% of the value of onward grants before the 2021/2022 funding period went to grantees with annual incomes of above £2 million.

Figure 15: Annual income of TTF onward grantees in the year they received the onward grant

Label	Under £175k	£175k–£500k	£500k–£1m	£1m–£2m	£2m or more	Total
Annual income of onward grantees %	36%	33%	16%	8%	8%	101%
Total value of onward grants %	20%	27%	19%	15%	18%	99%

5.4.4 Partnerships and organisational linking

The TTF logic model retrospectively identified that improving partnerships and organisational linking within the VCS was one of the aims of the Fund. Kantar Public looked at the subset of eight organisations receiving direct TTF funding with information of onward grants in their financial accounts. The accounts for these organisations detail both the onward grants given as part of TTF as well as other onward grants. By looking at the change in grant networks for these organisations over time, we can see how they reflect the role of TTF. For some, there was a clear increase in the number of onward grants awarded corresponding to the year TTF funding was received. Notably, the Rosa Fund lists 128 onward grants in 2018 (101 associated with TTF), and Mind lists 169 onward grants in 2019 (73 associated with TTF) – showing that both received at least twice the number of grants from the previous year.

Further, of the 307 TTF onward grants where detailed accounts information was available, the vast majority (280, or 91%) were financial connections that had not been reported before (at least in accounts dating back to financial year 2016/2017). Of these, 68 (24%) were repeated in at least one year after TTF funding. It is likely that TTF enabled a number of new financial connections between organisations, with a sizeable minority being maintained after TTF funding.

To support the public data and network analysis, Kantar Public collated additional data relating to partnerships and collaborations through an online survey. The majority of the 77 survey respondents (91%) reported collaborating with other organisations since receiving TTF funding. Of these, 70% reported establishing partnerships for sharing information and learning. Figure 16 shows the number of organisations respondents have collaborated with since receiving funds. Almost half of the reported collaborations were for project co-delivery, followed by information sharing and shared learning. Financial partnerships and integrating services were less prevalent, however: 78% and 63% of these types of partnership were with new organisations, respectively.

Figure 16: Survey responses on types of partnership

Type of partnership	Partnerships with new organisations	Total number of partnerships since receiving the grant	Total
Financial	18	5	23
Integrating services	12	7	19
Shared learning	48	34	82
Information sharing	47	55	102
Co-delivery of projects	40	152	192

The survey respondents expressed very positive views about TTF’s impact on creating or maintaining partnerships. Approximately eight out of 10 direct and indirect recipients agreed/strongly agreed that TTF had enabled successful collaboration and improved knowledge sharing, with almost 90% indicating they were committed to continuing these collaborations beyond the TTF funding period.

Figure 17: Survey responses on attitudes towards partnerships

Statement	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither agree not disagree	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Total
TTF has enabled successful collaboration with other organisations	31%	47%	19%	1%	1%	99%
TTF has led to improved knowledge sharing	30%	52%	16%	1%	1%	100%
Our organisation is committed to continue the collaborations beyond TTF	42%	44%	9%	1%	1%	97%

Appendix 6: Findings from TTF grantee survey

6.1 Introduction

The evaluation included a survey of grantees to explore the experiences of both direct and, as far as possible, onward grantees of the Fund. The survey considered the wider funding situation, the grant application process, the impact of grants and the future of activities supported by grants.

6.2 Methodology

The survey was undertaken using a list of TTF grant recipients who had agreed to participate and who had received an invitation to complete an online survey on grant funding in the UK and, in particular, on TTF. Where grant recipients were onward grant-makers, they were supplied with a further invitation and asked to pass this survey to the organisations to whom they had made onward grants. Respondents completed a short computer assisted wireless interview (CAWI) survey, hosted on a secure Kantar Public server and taking around 15 minutes to complete.

6.3 Questionnaire

The questionnaire was developed by DCMS and Kantar Public to address the research objectives and was subject to testing using an appropriate appraisal framework.[^3] Due to the timescales, no cognitive development or pilot phase was undertaken. The questionnaire focused on organisations receiving funding (the respondents) and, after development and framework testing, covered the following areas (Table 17).

Table 17: Questionnaire structure

Topic	Question
Organisational structure	Sector, size and locations in which organisation operates
Perceptions of funding environment	Funding streams accessed Perceptions of funding level available and change over time
Experience of bidding (directly or as the recipient of an onward grant)	Ease of application process Experience of bidding process (clarity, guidance, suitability)
Project delivery after funding	Proportion of project funding received from TTF Which activities were delivered Which audiences were delivered to with funding Delivery progress (delivering to plan, reaching beneficiaries, achieving outcomes, etc.) Delivery outcomes (incl. knowledge base, resources, enabling collaboration, existing and new activities, new beneficiaries, increased capacity and quality) Whether activities continued beyond funding period, and funding sources Whether could have delivered activities without TTF funding
Partnerships and networks	Whether collaborated with other organisations since receiving funding Whether (and numbers and types of) new partnerships established Perceived impact on collaboration, knowledge sharing and collaboration

6.4 Responses and quality control

A total of 77 organisations responded to the questionnaire – 43 from direct grantee organisations and 34 onward grantees (identified by organisation name). Four onward grantee respondents were unable to answer questions specifically aimed at this subgroup, although they answered all general questions and were therefore not included in the results from questions aimed specifically at onward grantees. Due to the small number of responses, all viable responses were included in each question, even if they were not present for every section.

The online research was validated post-survey to check no respondents had completed it unusually quickly (‘speeders’) or given the same response to all questions (‘flatlining’), and for any other unusual response patterns. No data was removed from the results on this basis.

6.5 Data analysis

The responses were combined and analysed at the aggregate level. Where sample size allows, data is shown for all organisations together and split by those who received funding directly from TTF (‘direct grantees’) and onward grantees who received funding via a direct grantee. Any significant differences in experience between the two groups are described in the commentary.

6.6 Summary of key findings

TTF was one of a variety of funding streams accessed by respondents, with other sources commonly including voluntary sector grants (92%), followed by government grants (81%). Public fundraising/donations (69%) and funding from arm’s length bodies such as the National Lottery Community Fund (66%) also featured strongly. Most respondents felt that the funding available to charity sector organisations was insufficient, with 84% disagreeing that there was sufficient funding for organisations like theirs. Respondents also believed strongly that the funding environment had worsened over the last 10 years (64% got worse).

Direct grantees were more likely to believe that it was easy (42%), rather than difficult (30%), to apply to TTF directly for funding. Among direct grantees, the majority agreed they were clear about bid process requirements and received sufficient support, although only around half of direct grantees were positive about the realism of bid requirements and the time/resource required to complete them. Onward grantees were relatively more positive about the bidding experience, with almost complete agreement that the bid requirements were clear and realistic, support evident and that time/resource expectations were suitable.

The most commonly delivered activity was frontline service provision (64%), with this top for organisations with both direct and indirect funding. Organisations (both direct and onward grantees) were most likely to report having delivered activities to marginalised groups (52%) followed by survivors of domestic abuse (49%).

Almost all respondents agreed that they were confident that the project was reaching its intended beneficiaries (99%) and that the project was being delivered on plan (96%). All agreed that they were confident that the project would/had reach(ed) its intended outcomes (100%). Respondents were just as likely to agree that external factors had influenced delivery positively (31%) as negatively (34%).

In general, attitudes towards the impact of funding on activities were positive, helping organisations reach new beneficiaries (90% agree), contribute to the knowledge base (87%), enable collaboration (83%) and begin new activities (79%). Funding was also perceived to positively support organisations in their current work (77%) and to increase the capacity to do more of this (77%).

While the number of respondents delivering individual types of activity was too low to provide detailed information, it is possible to say that many intended to continue activities after the funding ended, although more than half expected the level of delivery to reduce. Over half the respondents (58%) said they would not have been able to deliver these activities at all without the funding, and that they were most likely to seek further funding from private philanthropic grants/foundations when funding ended.

Nine in 10 respondents (91%) said they had collaborated with other organisations since receiving TTF funding, with an average of around three different types of partnership per organisation. Partnerships were most likely to involve shared learning (71%) or information sharing (71%).

Respondents generally agreed that TTF had been successful in enabling successful collaboration: around eight in 10 agreed that TTF had led to improved knowledge sharing with other organisations (82%) and that TTF had enabled successful collaboration with other organisations (78%). Furthermore, 86% agreed that their organisation was committed to continuing to collaborate with these organisations beyond the TTF funding period.

6.7 Organisational sector, size and location

More than half of respondents (57%) stated that their organisation operated in the ‘women’s sector’, providing activities supporting women and girls. The remaining respondents worked across a variety of sectors, with the most common being community (8%). While there were no significant differences in sector between those who were direct grantees and those who were onward grantees, most of those working in culture and all of those working in education and with families were onward grantees, while all of those working in advocacy, housing and legal support were direct grantees.

Table 18: Sector worked in

Sector	All	Direct grantee	Onward grantee
Women’s sector	57%	53%	62%
Community	8%	7%	9%
Culture	5%	2%	9%
Health (including mental health and addiction support)	5%	7%	3%
Social care	5%	7%	3%
Advocacy	3%	5%	0%
Housing	3%	5%	0%
Education	1%	0%	3%
Families and children	1%	0%	3%
Legal support	1%	2%	0%
Other	10%	12%	9%
Base: All respondents (n = )	77	43	34

Source survey question: Would you say that your organisation is part of the ‘women’s sector’? By ‘women’s sector’ we mean your organisation specifically focuses on the issues facing women and girls. Base all: n = 77; Base direct grantee: n = 43; Base onward grantee: n = 34; Survey source question: Which of the below best describes the primary sector in which your organisation operates? Base all: n = 77; Base direct grantee: n = 43; Base onward grantee: n = 34

Around two in three respondents were categorised as small organisations with fewer than 50 employees (65%). This was significantly higher among onward grantees (79%) compared with direct grantees (53%). Onward grantee organisations had an average of 28 employees. The average number of employees in direct grantee organisations was significantly higher, at 105.

Table 19: Organisation size

Organisation size categories	All	Direct grantee	Onward grantee
Small (under 50 employees)	65%	53%	79%
Medium (50 to 249 employees)	23%	30%	15%
Large (250 or more employees)	6%	12%	0%
Mean number of employees	71	105	28
Base: All respondents (n = )	77	43	34

Source survey question: Including yourself, approximately how many people currently work at your organisation? Base all: n = 77; Base direct grantee: n = 43; Base onward grantee: n = 34

All respondent organisations surveyed operated in the UK, although 5% also operated outside of the UK (all direct grantees). A large majority operated in England (79%), with a substantial minority operating in each of Wales (38%), Scotland (31%) and Northern Ireland (30%). Within England, organisations were slightly more likely to operate in the South (56%), especially London (48%) and the Midlands (52%), than in the North (44%). Direct grantees operated more widely compared with onward grantees: they were significantly more likely to operate in Wales (60% compared with 9%) and Scotland (44% compared with 15%), and in each area of England.

Table 20: Organisation operating locations

Countries	All	Direct grantee	Onward grantee
England	79%	84%	74%
Wales	38%	60%	9%
Scotland	31%	44%	15%
Northern Ireland	30%	35%	24%
Outside of UK	5%	9%	0%

Source survey question: In which of the following countries does your organisation operate? Base all: n = 77; Base direct grantee: n = 43; Base onward grantee: n = 34; Source survey question: In which parts of England does your organisation operate? Rebased over all, Base all: n = 77; Base direct grantee: n = 43; Base onward grantee: n = 34

6.8 Funding streams

Respondents were most likely to access grants from the voluntary sector (92%) to fund activities, with this also by far being the funding stream that was accessed the most (62%). The second most likely funding stream was government grants (81%, with this being accessed significantly more by direct grantees (93% vs onward grantees, 65%)). This was also the second most accessed funding stream (35%), albeit a long way behind voluntary sector grants. Funding from public donations or fundraising (69%) and the National Lottery Community Fund (66%) were also accessed by a majority of organisations, with the National Lottery Community Fund providing the third most accessed funding stream (31%). A significant minority reported using private sector donations (39%), with this being accessed significantly more by direct (53%) compared with onward grantees (21%).

Table 21: Funding streams accessed (including most accessed)

Funding stream	All	Direct grantee	Onward grantee	All: accessed the most
Voluntary sector grants (for example, trusts, foundations)	92%	93%	91%	62%
Government grants	81%	93%	65%	35%
The public via donations/fundraising	69%	77%	59%	13%
Arm’s length bodies – National Lottery Community Fund	66%	72%	59%	31%
Private sector donations	39%	53%	21%	6%
Government contracts and fees	36%	37%	35%	13%
Voluntary sector via fees/earned income	26%	28%	24%	5%
Other arm’s length bodies (for example, Arts Council England)	22%	19%	26%	9%
The public via fees for services	18%	9%	29%	5%
Private sector fees/earned income	18%	14%	24%	0%
The public via legacies	16%	23%	6%	1%
Investments/endowments	13%	19%	6%	1%
Base: All respondents (n = )	77	43	34	77

Source survey question: We are interested to know what funding streams your organisation accesses. Which of the following does your organisation currently use? Base all: n = 77: Source survey question: Of the funding streams your organisation currently uses, which does your organisation currently access the most? Please select up to three responses. Base all: n = 77; Base direct grantee: n = 43; Base onward grantee: n = 34; Base all: n = 77

The majority of respondents felt that funding was insufficient, with 84% disagreeing that there was sufficient funding, including 42% who disagreed strongly. Respondents also strongly believed that the funding environment had worsened over the last 10 years (64%); 17% said it was unchanged, and 13% said it had got better. Of those who felt it had got worse (n = 49), this was largely due to a lack of funding prioritisation for particular sectors/organisations (51%); increased competition for funding (49%); and less funding being available in general (43%). Around half of the 23 organisations who felt it was the same or better said this was because there were more opportunities for growth or funding (48%).

6.9 Perceptions of funding applications among direct grantees

Among direct grantees (n = 43), 30% felt that it was very, or fairly, difficult to apply to TTF directly for funding, while 42% felt it was fairly easy. The majority agreed that the bidding process requirements were clear, that the organisation understood what was expected (72%) and that they had sufficient guidance from DCMS to support the process through the ‘Guidance for Applicants’ document (72%) – although few agreed strongly with either statement (each 9%). Fewer agreed that the bidding process requirements were realistic and appropriate for their organisation (58%), or that the time and resources needed for the bid were suitable (51%).

Table 22: Experience of bidding process among direct grantees

Experience of bidding process: agreement that …	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Don’t know/not stated	Total agree
The bidding process requirements were clear, and we understood what was expected	9%	63%	9%	7%	0%	12%	72%
We had sufficient guidance from DCMS to support the bidding process through their ‘Guidance for Applicants’ document	9%	63%	9%	7%	0%	12%	72%
The bidding process requirements were realistic and appropriate for my organisation	5%	53%	19%	5%	7%	12%	58%
The time and resource needed to deliver the bid were suitable for our organisation	2%	49%	21%	14%	7%	7%	51%

Source survey question: Thinking about your (most recent) experience of applying for TTF, to what extent do you agree with each of the following statements? Base all direct grantees: n = 43

When asked about their most recent TTF project, over half of direct grantees said that all of their funding was from TTF as opposed to match funding (56%), with a further 23% reporting most of it was from the Fund. One in five (21%) said that just some, or a little, of the funding came from TTF.

6.10 Perceptions of funding applications among onward grantees

Onward grantees (n = 30) were relatively more positive about the bidding experience. All agreed, and more than half agreed strongly, that bidding process requirements were clear, that the organisation understood what was expected and that they had sufficient guidance to support the process (100% agreed; 53% agreed strongly). Almost all agreed that the bidding process requirements were realistic and appropriate for their organisation (97% agreed; 53% agreed strongly), with agreement being slightly less strong that the time and resource needed for the bid were suitable (97% agreed; 43% strongly agreed).

Table 23: Experience of bidding process among onward grantees

Experience of bidding process: agreement that …	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Don’t know/not stated	Total agree
The bidding process requirements were clear, and we understood what was expected	53%	47%	0%	0%	0%	0%	100%
We had sufficient guidance from the grant-maker to support the bidding process	53%	47%	0%	0%	0%	0%	100%
The bidding process requirements were realistic and appropriate for my organisation	53%	43%	0%	3%	0%	0%	97%
The time and resource needed to deliver the bid were suitable for our organisation	43%	53%	3%	0%	0%	0%	97%

Source survey question: Thinking about your experience of applying for funding, to what extent do you agree with each of the following statements? Base all onward grantees: Base: n = 30.[^4]

Of the onward grantees asked, 10% reported previously applying directly for TTF funding. The majority (77%) had not applied directly before; 10% were unsure; and 3% did not answer. Of those who had applied previously (n = 3), none found the experience easy, although only one said it had been difficult.

6.11 Activities, audiences, delivery progress and outcomes

The most commonly delivered activity was frontline service provision (64% for direct and onward grantees). Around a third of respondents reported using funding to signpost resources and services (35%), while 29% used it for training and 25% used it for awareness raising. In total, 27% respondents used it for onward grant-making (this was higher for direct grantees (40%) vs onward grantees (12%)). In contrast, only onward grantees were likely to use funding to deliver classes on general health and wellbeing (18%).

Table 24: Activities delivered using grant funding

Activities	All	Direct grantee	Onward grantee
Frontline service provision	64%	58%	71%
Signposting of resources and services	35%	37%	32%
Training	29%	30%	26%
Onward grant giving	27%	40%	12%
Awareness raising and communications campaigns	25%	21%	29%
Action research/evidence building	19%	26%	12%
Resource developing (including technology)	14%	19%	9%
Classes on general health and wellbeing	8%	0%	18%
Partnership building and business planning	6%	9%	3%
Provision of equipment	6%	5%	9%
Other capacity building activities	1%	0%	3%
Other	3%	2%	3%
Base: All respondents (n = )	77	43	34

Source survey question: What types of activities did you deliver using your TTF grant/your grant from …? Base all: n = 77; Base direct grantee: n = 43; Base onward grantee: n = 34

Respondents (both direct and onward grantees) were most likely to report having delivered activities to marginalised groups (52%) and survivors of DA (49%), followed by frontline workers (45%) and survivors of sexual harassment or assault (38%).

Table 25: Audiences delivered to using grant funding

Audiences	All	Direct grantee	Onward grantee
Marginalised groups, such as minorities or refugees	52%	47%	59%
Survivors of domestic abuse	49%	51%	47%
Those providing support or services to women or girls in need (frontline workers)	45%	51%	38%
Survivors of sexual harassment or assault	38%	40%	35%
Those without access to sanitary products	9%	7%	12%
Other	17%	19%	15%
Base: All respondents (n = )	77	43	34

Source survey question: Across all the activities you delivered as part of this Tampon Tax Fund project, who is/was the intended audience(s) or beneficiary group? Base all: n = 77; Base direct grantee: n = 43; Base onward grantee: n = 34

Almost all respondents agreed that they were confident that the project reached/is reaching its intended beneficiaries (99%), and all were confident that the project would/had reach(ed) its intended outcomes (100%), with over seven in 10 strongly agreeing with each statement. Similarly, 96% agreed that the project was being delivered to plan (62% agreeing strongly).

Around one in three agreed that external factors had negatively influenced delivery (34%), with almost as many agreeing that external factors had had a positive influence (31%). Around one in five disagreed with either statement. Onward grantees were more likely to agree that external factors had had a positive influence (47%) compared with direct grantees (19%).

Table 26: Delivery progress

Delivery progress: agreement that …	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Don’t know	Total agree
I am confident the project has reached/is reaching its intended beneficiaries	78%	21%	0%	0%	1%	0%	99%
I am confident the project has/will achieve its intended outcomes	71%	29%	0%	0%	0%	0%	100%
The project was/is being delivered according to our original plan outlined in the bid	62%	34%	1%	3%	0%	0%	96%
External factors (for example, COVID-19) have negatively influenced the delivery of the project	9%	25%	42%	19%	4%	1%	34%
External factors (for example, COVID-19) have positively influenced the delivery of the project	10%	21%	40%	22%	5%	1%	31%

Source survey question: Thinking about the activity or activities you delivered with TTF funding, to what extent do you agree with the following statements about the delivery experience? Base all: n = 77

In general, attitudes towards the impact of funding on activities were positive. Eight in 10 (or more) agreed that the grant had supported them to work to reach new beneficiaries (90%), contribute to the knowledge base on a specific issue (87%), enable collaborations and partnerships in their sector (83%) and begin new activities (79%). Strong agreement was relatively low for most of these, at around three in 10. Direct grantees were more likely than onward grantees to agree that the funding had supported them to contribute to the knowledge base (95% vs 76%), and to agree strongly that it had helped enable collaborations (44% vs 15%).

There was also evidence that the funding had successfully supported existing work. Just over three in four organisations agreed that the funding had supported them to improve the quality of what they already did (77%) and to increase capacity to do more of it (77%), with 73% agreeing that the funding had helped them continue delivering activities. There was less agreement that the funding had provided new resources or tools to those working on similar issues (69%) or supported a shift from response to prevention (62%). More onward grantees (76%) than direct grantees (51%) agreed that the grant had supported a shift in focus.

Table 27: Delivery outcomes

Delivery outcomes: grant has supported them to …	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Don’t know	Total agree
Work to reach new beneficiaries (outreach/ marketing/removing barriers to access services)	31%	58%	10%	0%	0%	0%	90%
Contribute to the knowledge base on a specific issue	39%	48%	12%	1%	0%	0%	87%
Enable collaboration and partnerships in your sector	31%	52%	13%	4%	0%	0%	83%
Begin new activities (e.g. a new community scheme)	30%	49%	18%	3%	0%	0%	79%
Improve the quality of what you already do (better equipment or facilities, staff/volunteer training)	31%	45%	16%	5%	0%	3%	77%
Increase capacity to do more of what you do already	25%	52%	14%	9%	0%	0%	77%
Continue to deliver existing activities and support	23%	49%	13%	12%	3%	0%	73%
Provide new resources/tools to those working on similar issues	26%	43%	22%	9%	0%	0%	69%
Support a shift in focus from response to prevention	22%	40%	25%	12%	0%	1%	62%

Source survey question: Thinking about what your Tampon Tax Fund/your grant from … has achieved, to what extent has this grant supported you to do the following? Base all: n = 77

6.12 Delivery after TTF funding finishes

While the number of respondents delivering most types of activity was too low to allow detailed reporting, it was possible to provide an overview of how able projects were to continue their activities past the end of funding (if continued activity beyond the end of funding was planned). Almost all respondents delivering awareness raising and campaigns (n = 19) and signposting of resources and services (n = 27) using TTF funding said some activity would continue past the end of their funding (they were fairly evenly split between continuing at the same and at reduced levels). Of those delivering frontline services (n = 49), 80% said this would continue, 35% at the same and 45% at reduced levels. Around half of respondents delivering action research (n = 15), training (n = 22) and onward grant giving (n = 21) said some activity would continue.

Table 28: Ability to deliver different activities beyond the funding period

Ability to deliver beyond funding period …	Yes, at any level	Yes, at the same level	Yes, at a reduced level	Base: Those with activity (n = )
Awareness raising and communications campaigns	95%	42%	53%	19
Signposting of resources and services	93%	52%	41%	27
Frontline service provision	80%	35%	45%	49
Action research/ evidence building	53%	20%	33%	15
Training	50%	23%	27%	22
Onward grant giving	43%	10%	33%	21
Resource developing	36%	9%	27%	11
Provision of equipment	25%	0%	25%	4

Source survey question: Following the end of the funding period, were you able to continue delivering any of the activities? If you are currently delivering a TTF project, please indicate any activities that will continue delivering beyond the end of the funding period. Base all delivering awareness raising and communications campaigns around key issues of the project: n = 19; Base all delivering signposting of resources and services: n = 27; Base all delivering frontline service provision: n = 49; Base all delivering action research/evidence building: n = 15; Base all delivering training: n = 22; Base all delivering onward grant giving: n = 21; Base all delivering resource developing: n = 11; Base all delivering provision of equipment: n = 4

Respondents who said activity at any scale would continue after the end of the funding period (or, if currently delivering, beyond the end of the funding period) were asked about other funding streams they had accessed to enable continuation for each activity. The small numbers of respondents limits further analysis, although three activities had slightly larger numbers: frontline service provision (n = 39), signposting of resources and services (n = 25) and awareness raising and communications campaigns (n = 18). Funds and grants from private philanthropic trusts/foundations or other organisations were selected most often for all three activities, particularly for frontline provision (49% of respondents said those activities would continue). This was followed (for all three activities) by government grants, charitable activities, and donations and legacies, each for around two in 10 of those with any ongoing activity.

Table 29: Funding streams accessed to enable continuation of project delivery

Streams accessed to enable continued delivery	Frontline services	Signposting of resources/services	Awareness raising/comms. campaigns
Funds and grants from private philanthropic trusts/foundations or other organisations	49%	36%	22%
Government grants	33%	24%	22%
Charitable activities	23%	24%	17%
Donations and legacies	23%	12%	17%
Government contracts	18%	16%	17%
Funds or grants from other sector organisations	15%	12%	17%
Funds and grants from funding bodies	13%	16%	22%
Other trading activities	10%	12%	0%
Other	10%	12%	11%
Don’t know	5%	8%	6%
Base: Those with continuing activity (n = )	39	25	18

Source survey question: Which funding sources have you accessed to enable you to continue these activities? Base all continuing to deliver frontline services past the end of the funding period: n = 39; Base all continuing to deliver signposting of resources and services: n = 25; Base all continuing to deliver awareness raising and communications campaigns: n = 18

Table 30: Would organisation have been able to deliver activities without funding

Frontline service provision	All	Direct grantee	Onward grantee
Wouldn’t have been able to do these at all	58%	65%	50%
Would have done fewer types and at a smaller scale	27%	21%	35%
Would have done the same activities but at a smaller scale	6%	7%	6%
Would have done the same activities at the same scale	3%	5%	0%
Would have done fewer types of activities but at the same scale	3%	0%	6%
Don’t know	3%	2%	3%
Base: All respondents (n = )	77	43	34

Source survey question: If your organisation had not received a TTF grant/a grant from (organisation), would you still have been able to undertake these activities? Base all: n = 77; Base direct n = 43; onward grantee: n = 34

Over half of respondents (58%) said that they would not have been able to deliver their activities at all without the funding, with 27% saying they would have delivered fewer activities at a smaller scale. Only a small share of respondents reported that they would have been able to deliver the same activities at a smaller scale, or the same or fewer activities at the same scale.

Among respondents who believed they would have been able to deliver activities to some scale without funding (n = 9), just under half reported that they would have sought additional external funding to complete delivery (44%), with 56% stating they would have used a mix of existing and additional funds.

6.13 Partnerships with other organisations

Nine in 10 respondents (91%) reported collaborating with other organisations since receiving funding, with an average of around three types of partnership each, most likely to involve shared learning or information sharing (both 71%), and more commonly among direct (86%) vs onward grantees (53%).

Table 31: Types of partnership

Types of partnerships	All	Direct grantee	Onward grantee
ANY partnerships established	91%	95%	85%
Shared learning	71%	86%	53%
Information sharing	71%	74%	68%
Co-delivery of projects	55%	56%	53%
Integrating services	25%	28%	21%
Financial partnerships	13%	21%	3%
Base: All respondents (n = )	77	43	34

Source survey question: Have you collaborated with other organisations since receiving TTF funding? Base all: n = 77; Source survey question: Please indicate the types of partnerships you have established? Base all: n = 77

One in three respondents reported setting up a new partnership since receiving funding. One in five reported new partnerships for shared learning (22%), information sharing (19%) and project co-delivery (18%).

Table 32: Proportion with new partnerships (all: n = 77)

Types of new partnerships	All	Direct grantee	Onward grantee
ANY new partnerships established	35%	35%	35%
Shared learning	22%	28%	15%
Information sharing	19%	16%	24%
Co-delivery of projects	18%	14%	24%
Integrating services	9%	9%	9%
Financial partnerships	8%	12%	3%
Base: All respondents (n = )	77	43	34

Source survey question: Of the organisations you have partnered with, which have been new partnerships set up for the first time since first receiving funding the TTF/your grant from …? Rebased over all, Base all: n = 77

Direct and onward grantees agreed that TTF had enabled successful collaboration, and around eight in 10 agreed it had led to improved knowledge sharing (82%) and enabled successful collaboration with other organisations (78%). The vast majority of respondents (86%) agreed that they were committed to continued collaboration with these organisations beyond TTF funding, with 42% agreeing strongly.

Table 33: Partnership outcomes: Collaboration with other organisations

Experience of bidding process: agreement that …	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Don’t know	Total agree
We are committed to continued collaborations beyond TTF funding	42%	44%	9%	1%	1%	3%	86%
The TTF has led to improved knowledge sharing with others	30%	52%	16%	1%	1%	0%	82%
The TTF has enabled successful collaboration with others	31%	47%	19%	1%	1%	0%	78%

Source survey question: To what extent do you agree/disagree with the following? Base all: n = 77

Appendix 7: TTF grantee survey questionnaire

The questionnaire was developed by DCMS and Kantar Public together. The questionnaire ran as follows.

Table 34: Survey source questionnaire

Instruction	Question
Ask all. Not shown on screen. Please identify from survey link and code into data	Direct recipient Indirect recipient
Ask all	This survey is being carried out by Kantar Public, an independent social research company, on behalf of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). It aims to understand the experience and impact of the Tampon Tax Fund on organisations which have received funding directly or indirectly from the Fund.
Ask if direct recipient	We are interested in hearing your experiences of the Fund application process and detail of the projects that have been delivered as part of the Fund. The person who completes this survey should be someone in your organisation who has knowledge of your (most recent) Tampon Tax Fund funded project and that has wider knowledge of your organisation’s sources of external funding. We ask that the survey is completed by a relevant member of your organisation.
Ask if indirect recipient	We understand that you received funding from [FILL NAME OF ORGANISATION FROM SAMPLE] as part of Tampon Tax Fund onward grant giving. We are interested in hearing your experiences of applying for this Fund as well as details of the projects that have been delivered with the grant. The person who completes this survey should be someone in your organisation who has knowledge of the project(s) you delivered with this grant and has wider knowledge of your organisation’s sources of external funding. We ask that the survey is completed by a relevant member of your organisation.
Ask all	The survey will take approximately 15 minutes to complete. Participating in the survey is completely voluntary. Your responses will be used for research and statistical purposes only and treated anonymously and confidentially. You can skip any questions you do not feel able to answer. We are running this study in line with the Market Research Society Code of Conduct and in line with our privacy policy which can be accessed here INSERT LINK TO KP STANDARD PRIVACY POLICY] and is mentioned in the email invitation that you received. If you have any queries or concerns, you can contact the Kantar Public research team by emailing TamponTaxEvaluation@kantar.com. Would you be happy to take part? Yes = > CONTINUE No = > CLOSE SURVEY
Ask all	To help us verify organisations who have accessed Tampon Tax Fund funding or onward grants, can you please confirm the name of the organisation you work for? Please note that findings published by the DCMS will be in aggregate form and will not identify you in any way. OPEN RESPONSE BOX Don’t know Prefer not to say
Ask all	We are interested to learn more about the sector in which your organisation operates. Would you say that your organisation is part of the ‘women’s sector’? By ‘women’s sector’ we mean your organisation specifically focuses on the issues facing women and girls. Yes No I don’t know Prefer not to say
Ask if no at previous question	Which of the below best describes the primary sector in which your organisation operates? Please select one answer only. 1.Education 2. Social care 3. Health (including mental health, addiction support) 4. Families and children 5. Community 6. Economic development 7. Advocacy 8. Legal support 9. Housing 10. Culture 11. Sport 12. Religious or faith based 13. Other (please specify) 14. Don’t know 15. Prefer not to say
Ask all	Including yourself, approximately how many people currently work at your organisation? OPEN RESPONSE BOX Don’t know Prefer not to say
Ask all	In which of the following countries does your organisation operate? Please select all that apply. 1. England 2. Wales 3. Scotland 4. Northern Ireland 5. Outside of UK 6. Don’t know 7. Prefer not to say
Ask if answered ‘England’ at previous question	In which parts of England does your organisation operate? Please select all that apply. 1. North East 2. North West 3. Yorkshire and Humber 4. East Midlands 5. West Midlands 6. East of England 7. London 8. South East 9. South West 10. Don’t know 11. Prefer not to say
Ask all	We would now like to get your thoughts about funding available to your organisation, and the types of funds your organisation accesses.
Ask all	We are interested to know what funding streams your organisation accesses. Which of the following does your organisation currently use? Please select all that apply. 1. The public – donations/fundraising 2. The public – legacies 3. The public – fees for services 4. Government grants 5. Government contracts and fees 6. Arm’s length bodies – National Lottery funding 7. Arm’s length bodies – other (e.g. Arts Council England) 8. Voluntary sector – grants (e.g. from trusts and foundations) 9. Voluntary sector – fees/earned income 10. Private sector – donations 11. Private sector – fees/earned income 12. Investments/endowments 13. Other (please specify) 14. Don’t know 15. Prefer not to say
Ask if answered any response but ‘don’t know’ or ‘prefer not to say’ at previous question	Of the funding streams your organisation currently uses, which does your organisation currently access the most? Please select up to three responses. 1. The public – donations/fundraising 2. The public – legacies 3. The public – fees for services 4. Government grants 5. Government contracts and fees 6. Arm’s length bodies – National Lottery funding 7. Arm’s length bodies – other (e.g. Arts Council England) 8. Voluntary sector – grants (e.g. from trusts and foundations) 9. Voluntary sector – fees/earned income 10. Private sector – donations 11. Private sector – fees/earned income 12. Investments/endowments 13. Other (please specify) 14. Don’t know 15. Prefer not to say
Ask all	To what extent would you agree or disagree with the following statement? There is sufficient funding for organisations like mine. Please select one answer only. 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Neutral – neither agree or disagree 4. Disagree 5. Strongly disagree 6. Don’t know 7. Prefer not to say
Ask all	Thinking about how much funding is available in the sector, do you think the funding environment has got better or worse in the last 10 years? 1. A lot better 2. Better 3. Neither better nor worse 4. Worse 5. A lot worse 6. Don’t know 7. Prefer not to say
Ask all answering anything but ‘don’t know’ or ‘prefer not to say’	You said funding has got [INSERT RESPONSE FROM PREVIOUS QUESTION] in the last 10 years, please can you briefly explain why you think that? OPEN RESPONSE BOX Don’t know Prefer not to say
Ask if direct recipient	In this section of the survey, we would like to hear about your experiences of bidding for Tampon Tax Fund funding. If you have bid multiple times, please think about your most recent experience.
Ask if direct recipient	Thinking about your (most recent) experience of applying for the Tampon Tax Fund, how easy or difficult did you find the application process? Please select one answer only. 1. Very easy 2. Fairly easy 3. Neither easy nor difficult 4. Fairly difficult 5. Very difficult 6. Don’t know 7. Prefer not to say
Ask if direct recipient	Thinking about your (most recent) experience of applying for the Tampon Tax Fund, to what extent do you agree with each of the following statements? Please select one answer only. STATEMENTS 1. The bidding process requirements were clear, and we understood what was expected 2. The bidding process requirements were realistic and appropriate for my organisation 3. The time and resource needed to deliver the bid were suitable for our organisation 4. We had sufficient guidance from DCMS to support the bidding process through their ‘Guidance for Applicants’ document RESPONSES 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Neither agree or disagree 4. Disagree 5. Strongly disagree 6. Don’t know 7. Prefer not to say
Ask if indirect recipient	We understand that you bid for and received funding from [TEXT FILL ORG NAME FROM SAMPLE], which was part of the Tampon Tax Fund. We would like to hear about your experiences of bidding for this grant.
Ask if indirect recipient	Thinking about your experience of applying for funding, to what extent do you agree with each of the following statements? Please select one answer only. STATEMENTS 1. The bidding process requirements were clear, and we understood what was expected 2. The bidding process requirements were realistic and appropriate for my organisation 3. The time and resource needed to deliver the bid were suitable for our organisation 4. We had sufficient guidance from the grant maker to support the bidding process RESPONSES 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Neither agree or disagree 4. Disagree 5. Strongly disagree 6. Don’t know 7. Prefer not to say
Ask if indirect recipient	Have you ever previously applied for Tampon Tax Funding directly from DCMS? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don’t know 4. Prefer not to say
Ask if ‘yes’ at previous question	You said you have applied directly for the Tampon Tax Fund. Thinking about your most recent experience of applying for the Fund, how easy or difficult did you find the application process? Please select one answer only. 1. Very easy 2. Fairly easy 3. Neither easy nor difficult 4. Fairly difficult 5. Very difficult 6. Don’t know 7. Prefer not to say
Ask all	We are interested to hear about the project and activities you have completed [IF DIRECT RECIPIENT insert text: with your Tampon Tax Fund grant] [IF INDIRECT RECIPIENT insert text: with your grant from [TEXTFILL NAME FROM SAMPLE]]. If you have received funding in multiple funding rounds, please think about your most recently funded project when answering the following questions.
Ask if direct recipient	For your most recent Tampon Tax Fund project, what proportion of the project’s total funding was made of the Tampon Tax Fund (as opposed to match funding)? Please select one answer only. 1. All of it 2. Most of it 3. Some of it 4. Little of it 5. Don’t know 6. Prefer not to say
Ask all	What types of activities did you deliver using [IF DIRECT RECIPIENT insert text: your Tampon Tax Fund grant] [IF INDIRECT RECIPIENT insert text: your grant from [TEXTFILL FROM SAMPLE]]? Please select all that apply. 1. Frontline service provision 2. Signposting of resources and services 3. Action research/evidence building 4. Awareness raising and communications campaigns around key issues of the project 5. Resource developing (including tech) 6. Provision of equipment 7. Onward grant giving 8. Training 9. Other capacity building activities (please specify) 10. Other (please specify) 11. Don’t know 12. Prefer not to say
Ask if answered anything but ‘don’t know’ or ‘prefer not to say’	Across all the activities you delivered as part of this Tampon Tax Fund project, who is/was the intended audience(s) or beneficiary group? Select as many as apply 1. Survivors of domestic abuse 2. Survivors of sexual harassment or assault 3. Marginalised groups, such as minorities or refugees 4. Those without access to sanitary products 5. Those providing support or services to women or girls in need (frontline workers) 6. Other (please specify) (Open text)
Ask all	Thinking about the activity or activities you delivered with TTF funding, to what extent do you agree with the following statements about the delivery experience? Please select one answer only. STATEMENTS 1. I am confident the project has reached/is reaching its intended beneficiaries 2. The project was/is being delivered according to our original plan outlined in the bid 3. I am confident the project has/will achieve its intended outcomes 4. External factors (for example COVID) have positively influenced the delivery of the project 5. External factors (for example COVID) have negatively influenced the delivery of the project RESPONSES 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Neither agree nor disagree 4. Disagree 5. Strongly disagree 6. Don’t know 7. Prefer not to say
Ask all	Thinking about what [IF DIRECT RECIPIENT insert text: your Tampon Tax Fund grant] [IF INDIRECT RECIPIENT insert text: your grant from [TEXTFILL FROM SAMPLE]] has achieved, to what extent has this grant supported you to do the following? Please select one answer only. STATEMENTS 1. Contribute to the knowledge base on a specific issue 2. Provide new resources or tools for those working on similar issues 3. Support a shift in focus from response to prevention of specific issues 4. Enable collaboration and partnerships between organisations in your sector 5. Continue to deliver existing activities and support 6. Increase capacity to do more of what you do already (e.g. recruit/retain more staff or volunteers) 7. Improve the quality of what you already do (e.g. hire or buy better equipment, improve facilities or invest in training for volunteers or staff) 8. Begin new activities (e.g. starting a new community scheme) 9. Work to reach new beneficiaries (e.g. outreach/marketing/ removing barriers to access services/support) RESPONSES 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Neither agree or disagree 4. Disagree 5. Strongly disagree 6. Don’t know 7. Prefer not to say
Ask all	Following the end of the funding period, were you able to continue delivering any of the activities? If you are currently delivering a TTF project, please indicate any activities that will continue delivering beyond the end of the funding period. Please select one answer per row. STATEMENTS – ONLY SHOW THOSE ACTIVITIES SELECTED PREVIOUSLY 1. Frontline service provision 2. Signposting 3. Research/evidence building 4. Awareness raising 5. Resource developing (including tech) 6. Provision of equipment 7. Onward grant giving 8. Training 9. Other capacity building activities 10. Other activities RESPONSES 1. Yes – at the same or a greater scale 2. Yes – but reduced scale 3. No 4. Don’t know 5. Prefer not to say
Ask for each activity to be continued/continued at the ‘same/greater’ or ‘reduced’ scale	Which funding sources have you accessed to enable you to continue these activities? 1. Government grants 2. Government contracts 3. Donations and legacies 4. Charitable activities 5. Endowments 6. Investment 7. Other trading activities 8. Funds or grants from other sector organisations, e.g. mini competitions using larger grants 9. Funds and grants from funding bodies, e.g. sector councils like the Arts Council 10. Funds and grants from private philanthropic trusts/foundations or other organisations 11. Other (please specify) 12. Don’t know 13. Prefer not to say
Ask all	If your organisation had not received [IF DIRECT RECIPIENT insert text: a Tampon Tax Fund grant] [IF INDIRECT RECIPIENT insert text: a grant from [TEXTFILL FROM SAMPLE]], would your organisation still have been able to undertake these activities? Please select the statement below which best fits what your organisation would have done. 1. We would have done the same activities at the same scale 2. We would have done the same activities but at a smaller scale 3. We would have done fewer types of activities but at the same scale 4. We would have done fewer types and at a smaller scale 5. We wouldn’t have been able to do these at all 6. Don’t know 7. Prefer not to say
Ask if ‘would have done the same activities at the same scale’, ‘same activities but at a smaller scale’ or ‘fewer types of activities but at the same scale’.	You said you would have done some or all of these activities even without this grant. What source(s) of funding would you have used instead? Please select one response only. 1. Use existing (internal) budget or funding 2. Apply for another external funding source 3. A mix of both 4. Don’t know 5. Prefer not to say
Ask all	Before we finish, we are interested to hear more about your organisation’s partnerships and networks.
Ask all	Have you (as an organisation) collaborated with other organisations since first receiving funding from [IF DIRECT RECIPIENT insert text: the Tampon Tax Fund] [IF INDIRECT RECIPIENT insert organisation name text: [TEXTFILL FROM SAMPLE]]? Please select one answer only. 1. Yes 2. No 3. I don’t know 4. Prefer not to say
Ask if ‘yes’ at previous question	We are keen to understand the existing collaborations and networks in the sector and how the Tampon Tax Fund and grants issued from this have helped organisations to create new partnerships and expand their networks. For this purpose, it would be helpful to understand which partnerships have been built as a result of the Fund, if any. Please indicate the types of partnerships you have established during or since receiving the grant. 1. Financial partnerships 2. Integrating services 3. Co-delivery of projects 4. Information sharing 5. Shared learning
Ask for each partnership type mentioned at previous question	If you are happy to do so, please list the organisations you have collaborated with during or since receiving the grant for each category. This should be all organisations you have worked with – we will ask which are new next. The names of organisations will not be included in publications; this will just be used to run analysis on sector networks, which is presented to show numbers of connections, not the names of the organisations. Organisations may fit in more than one category 1. Financial partnerships: (Open text) 2. Integrating services: (Open text) 3. Co-delivery of projects: (Open text) 4. Information sharing: (Open text) 5. Shared learning: (Open text)
Ask for each partnership type answered about at previous question	Of the organisations you have partnered with, which, if any, have been new partnerships set up for the first time since first receiving [IF FUND BACKGROUND DUMMY = 1 insert text: your Tampon Tax Fund grant; IF FUND BACKGROUND DUMMY = 2 insert text: your grant from [TEXTFILL FROM SAMPLE]]? For each category, add which organisations (that you listed in the previous question) are new partnerships. Organisations may fit in more than one category. 1. Financial partnerships: (Open text) 2. Integrating services: (Open text) 3. Co-delivery of projects: (Open text) 4. Information sharing: (Open text) 5. Shared learning: (Open text)
Ask all	To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Please select one answer only. STATEMENTS 1. The Tampon Tax Fund has enabled successful collaboration with other organisations 2. The Tampon Tax Fund has led to improved knowledge sharing with other organisations 3. Our organisation has/is committed to continue collaborating with these organisations beyond the Tampon Tax Fund funding period RSPONSES 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Neither agree or disagree 4. Disagree 5. Strongly disagree 6. Don’t know 7. Prefer not to say
Ask all	Thank you for taking the time to participate in the evaluation. We need to ask you one more question before we finish, but before we do, do you have any final thoughts about the Tampon Tax Fund and its impact you want to share? OPEN RESPONSE BOX Don’t know Prefer not to say
Ask all	If we have any further questions related to this survey, would you be willing to be re-contacted by Kantar within the next 3 months? Your information will only be used in relation to the research you have agreed to take part in, and no one will ever try to sell you anything based on the information you have given. 1. I agree to be recontacted about this survey 2. I do not agree to be re-contacted about this survey

Appendix 8: Findings from the QuIP

8.1 Introduction

This appendix presents the main findings from the Qualitative Impact Protocol (QuIP) component of the evaluation of the TTF, carried out by Bath Social Development Research (Bath SDR). The aim was to evaluate the impact of TTF at the sector and organisation level and to understand other factors also influencing these outcomes.

Overall, the findings suggested that TTF did have a positive impact at the organisational, sector and individual level. However, the findings also showed that other funders had a similar impact on these outcomes. Furthermore, contextual factors, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and the cost-of-living crisis, were reported as negatively influencing intended outcomes, particularly through increased need. Finally, funding challenges were highlighted as consistent barriers to sustained success.

8.2 Methodology

This study was carried out using the QuIP method. QuIP is a non-experimental, qualitative approach to impact evaluation. It aims to collect credible information about the impact of an intervention directly from the intended beneficiaries. Due to its open-ended nature, it is particularly useful in complex contexts where a variety of factors are likely to be influencing intended outcomes. Further details regarding the methodology and how it was applied in this study are outlined below. See more background information and resources on the Quip method.

8.2.1 Recruitment

TTF grantee organisations (selected from a list provided by DCMS) were invited to participate in the study via email. It was explained that this interview formed part of a larger evaluation of TTF.[^5] Those willing and available to participate completed an online informed consent form prior to the interview. A donation of £100 was then made as a token of gratitude to organisations who participated.

48 QuIP interviews were commissioned, ensuring a range of TTF grantee organisations and project types were covered in the sample, including:

• various delivery modes (grantees and onward grantees)

• various thematic areas (for example VAWG, homelessness, mental health)

• various intervention types (frontline and capacity building)

Organisations were required to meet the following criteria to be included in the sample:

• they had received TTF funding from the 2018/2019 cohort onwards (to increase the potential for accurate respondent recall)

• they were not already participating in case studies conducted by Kantar Public (to avoid respondent fatigue)

The aim was to split the sample evenly between the two funding delivery modes: 24 grantees and 24 onward grantees. The original case selection strategy also intended to split the sample by intervention type, but this approach was refined during the design phase based on the availability of data.

Despite the limited number of eligible grantees to sample from, 13 agreed to participate and were included in the final sample. Five of these organisations also provided onward funding to other organisations.

A decision was made to increase the number of onward grantees recruited, as there was potential to recruit more contacts in this group. Onward grantees were recruited by snowballing through the grantees providing onward funding. There was a high response rate but, due to the time constraints on the data collection period, only 27 were interviewed.

The final sample included a range of frontline services and capacity building activities across different themes, including VAWG, homelessness and mental health.

8.2.2 Data collection

In total, 40 representatives from direct grantee and onward grantee organisations were interviewed. The interviews were conducted remotely (via Zoom and Google Meet) by a team of independent UK-based researchers, employed and trained by Bath SDR. Data collection took place between late November and December 2022. Where consent was given, audio recordings from the interviews were used by the researchers to write up summary transcripts.

The QuIP methodology takes an open-ended and outcomes-based approach to interviewing. This approach aims to reduce confirmation bias and to explore the wider context and complexity of how and why things are changing over time.

1. Questions are designed to be as broad and open-ended as possible to allow participants to share what was most important and relevant to them. This increases the potential to capture any unintended outcomes (positive or negative) and/or unanticipated drivers of change.

2. Questions are focused on intended outcomes rather than on known interventions. There are no direct questions about inputs[^6] (in this case, TTF). Instead, participants are asked to reflect on any changes relating to key outcomes. This means that the discussion is not limited to one intervention, reducing the risk that participants will feel pressured to say something positive about the intervention under evaluation.

QuIP interviews use a semi-structured discussion guide. Sections are usually based on key intended outcomes where some change is expected to result from the intervention. In this study, the following outcomes were selected based on the TTF logic model, which was developed as part of the evaluation scoping phase:

• project activities and services

• partnerships with other organisations

• funding

QuIP interviews ask participants to consider whether things have changed over a specific timeframe. For the TTF evaluation, this was set to a year before the organisation received TTF funding to capture the before and after picture. Participants were then asked to reflect on what they perceived to be the reasons for any changes reported.

8.2.3 Data analysis

All the respondent data was anonymised by allocating a source code to each respondent. A Bath SDR analyst, trained in qualitative data analysis, coded the summary interview transcripts using the Causal Map App, an online data analysis tool.

The QuIP coding process involves the analyst identifying and linking the change(s) reported by the participants and the reason(s) they gave for any change(s) reported. This approach enables the analysis of patterns and trends across the narratives of participants to understand which stories of change are most frequently cited across the sample. QuIP analysts usually only code statements related to changes. In this study, statements about the status quo were not generally coded.

8.2.4 Understanding QuIP causal maps

Throughout this report, diagrams called ‘causal maps’ are included to present visually how the participants’ stories of change have been coded by the analyst. The following should be noted.

1. Maps should be read left to right, with the direction of the arrowhead on each link reflecting the direction of causation or influence.

2. Above each link, there is a number representing the number of sources (participants) who made that causal claim. Links are also scaled, which means that the greater the width of the arrow and the darker the colour, the higher the source count.

3. These maps use a feature called ‘path tracing’, where they trace all the links from one factor to another, capturing (a set number of) links in between. For example, a map tracing from A to C will show any direct links from A to C, as well as in-between links such as A to B to C.

4. On each factor, there is a number representing how many participants overall linked that factor to the selected ‘from’ factor. In our example, that number shows how many participants linked factors B or C to factor A overall.

5. All maps have been filtered to remove links reported by fewer than five participants.

Counts are presented to highlight trends in the data, but these should not be interpreted as being representative of a particular population. Quotations are also used to share more detail and give examples, but they do not necessarily represent a ‘majority’ or ‘minority’ view.

8.3 TTF impact at the organisational level

Overall, participants were positive about the impact of TTF at the organisational level. Most participants reported that TTF had contributed to their organisation starting or developing activities or services. Furthermore, many claimed that TTF helped increase their organisational capacity, particularly in recruiting new staff. It is worth noting that some respondents who claimed organisational capacity had increased reported that this was within the context of need/demand also increasing.

8.3.1 Organisational capacity

Overall, many participants claimed that TTF funding had increased their organisational capacity to some extent. As shown in Figure 18, participants linked TTF funding to increased organisational capacity directly and through other intermediate outcomes.

Some participants reported that TTF had increased organisational capacity through funding new staff positions, including delivery, managerial and consultancy roles. Some of these participants noted how this recruitment had created more capacity in terms of developing and diversifying the organisation’s knowledge and skills base.

A few participants (all grantees that were also providing onward grants) noted how TTF’s flexibility had increased their organisational capacity by enabling them to be more creative. The flexibility of TTF was described as “quite unique” and “rare”. One respondent described TTF in contrast to other funding:

The funding from the Tampon Tax Fund was so great because we were able to just put our dream project into a project bid that then become a reality, rather than the Tampon Tax Fund saying we really want people to specifically deliver something about this or this … There’s [usually] not that kind of space for the creativity. So, it’d be very much us delivering something on behalf of someone else’s vision and strategy … And this is where we saw a gap and we’ve been able to kind of address that through the Tampon Tax Fund.

– QuIP participant

A few other participants mentioned monitoring and evaluation activities funded by TTF and/or supported by advice from the onward grant-maker. Participants felt this increased organisational capacity to assess and report on impact. There were isolated reports of this helping “tweak” services and secure funding.

Figure 18: Path tracing the impacts of TTF on organisational capacity

Some participants shared that TTF had increased their organisation’s capacity to support women and girls through improved activities or services funded. Others claimed that their organisation’s capacity in terms of staff knowledge and skills had increased because of improved voluntary and community sector (VCS) partnerships and access to learning (training) funded by TTF.

8.3.2 Activities and services

Overall, the majority of participants claimed that TTF funding had contributed to their organisation improving its activities or services. This included starting and/or developing activities or services, at the frontline and/or capacity building level. As shown in Figure 19, participants linked TTF funding to improved activities or services directly and through other intermediate outcomes.

Given the range of organisation types in the sample, a broad spectrum of activities and services were attributed to TTF. At the frontline level, new and developed activities and services included:

• support groups/one-to-one counselling for women who had experienced violence or abuse

• group talking circles and one-to-one mentoring for young women

• phone helplines

• online chat helplines

• legal/financial advice

• music, sports, hobbies, arts and play-based therapy activities

• training including skills training, for example English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) classes

At the capacity building level, new and developed activities and services included:

• training for other organisations

• sharing information/resources through a website repository or events

• research projects including sector mapping exercises

• onward funding programmes

Most participants described using TTF funding to start new activities or provide new services in response to specific needs or sector gaps. For example, one organisation identified a gap in provision for women experiencing “problems or harms in their gambling”. Through TTF, they started providing support and treatment for women, as well as training other organisations to identify signs early on for referral. They described being able to “really drive [this] forward as a new strand of work” (QuIP participant).

Another example was a specialist DA court peer mentoring programme. The organisation had been running specialist courts for years, but through TTF funding they began systematically sharing best practice and promoting their model with others.

Some described using the funds to develop existing activities or services by adding components or expanding their reach to new groups and/or geographical areas.

Figure 19: Path tracing the impacts of TTF on improved activities/services

Some participants noted how TTF led to improvements in activities or services through increased organisational capacity and/or improved VCS partnerships.

8.4 TTF impact at the sector level

There was some evidence that TTF had a positive impact at the sector level. Some participants linked TTF to improved sector partnerships, but only a few mentioned improvements in other sector-level outcomes in the logic model. Most participants were onward grantees focused on frontline activities, which might explain why not so many sector-level outcomes were reported.

8.4.1 Sector partnerships

Overall, some participants claimed that TTF funding had improved their partnerships with other organisations in the VCS. As shown in Figure 20, most of these participants linked TTF directly to improved sector partnerships.

Figure 20: Path tracing the impacts of TTF on improved sector partnerships/referral pathways

Participants described how TTF had connected them to other organisations in the VCS through networking, collaborative funding bids and joint service delivery. In some cases, participants described how these partnerships had helped improve their activities or services, while others said they felt more supported:

It’s just the feeling of not being alone…you feel like you’re part of something.

– QuIP participant

A few participants explicitly linked improved partnerships to improved referral pathways between organisations. As shown in Figures 19 and 20, sector partnerships influenced by TTF funding were linked to increased organisational capacity and improved activities and services.

8.4.2 Sector capacity

Overall, only a few participants explicitly claimed that TTF had helped improve VCS-level capacity, knowledge or assets. Most of these links related to new capacity building activities (such as training and sharing information), leading to increased knowledge and skills in the sector. One grantee shared that the goal of their project was to “showcase [their] best practice” (M2).

There were also a few references to distributing onward funding (from grantees providing onward grants). Participants claimed this had led to other organisations in the sector starting and/or developing activities or services. One grantee providing onward grants described supporting other organisations to “sustain what they were doing, grow a little bit, maybe run a small project” (M1).

8.5 TTF impact at individual level

The QuIP evaluation did not intend to capture the impact of TTF at the individual level. This is because it was beyond its scope to speak to the women and girls accessing TTF funded projects themselves. However, some participants did claim that TTF had contributed to improved outcomes for the women and girls they support.

8.5.1 Improved outcomes for women and girls

Most of these claims were based on respondents’ own observations, but a few referenced internal or external evaluations as evidence. As shown in Figure 21, these participants claimed that TTF had improved their activities or services and, in turn, outcomes for women and girls.

Figure 21: Path tracing the impacts of TTF on improved outcomes for women/girls

The most frequently reported outcomes for women and/or girls were:

• increased confidence/self-esteem

• ability to act as own their agents

• increased knowledge and skills

• improved relationships with peers

• improved access to services

The girls have felt empowered from it. They felt like they had a voice.

– QuIP participant

8.6 Impact of other funders and changes in the funding landscape

Many participants mentioned other funding streams contributing to similar outcomes to TTF. More generally, responses were mixed about how the funding landscape had changed over the recall period.

8.6.1 Other funding streams

Most participants claimed that funding from other sources had also contributed to positive impacts at the sector, organisational and individual level. As shown in Figure 22, participants frequently linked other funders to improved activities or services, capacity and/or partnerships.

Participants mentioned a range of other funding providers, including:

• local authorities

• other government departments

• trusts/foundations/non-governmental organisations

• business and commercial partners

Figure 22: Path tracing the impacts of other funding

8.6.2 Funding landscape

Some participants explicitly claimed that the funding landscape for the women and girls sector had worsened over the recall period. The main reasons cited for this were the COVID-19 pandemic and the cost-of-living crisis.

A few organisations described experiencing a gap in funding during the pandemic, as funding was “running out”. This was linked to the decreased capacity to fundraise, both by writing bids (due to workload) and through events (due to lockdowns). A few others noted a drop in donations, with descriptions ranging from donations “drop[ping] slightly” to a “massive dip”. The main explanation participants gave was that “everybody is struggling” due to the cost-of-living crisis.

In addition, a few participants stated that government funding cuts had negatively affected funding opportunities.

A couple of respondents also felt that, because media coverage of VAWG had now decreased, funding opportunities and donations had also gone down. One participant described how “VAWG isn’t the flavour of the month anymore”. This exemplifies how access to funding and donations fluctuated for some organisations throughout the period.

Other participants did not explicitly give a reason why, but corroborated the claims that funding had become less available as grants were getting smaller. A few participants claimed that reduced funding opportunities had created more competition among organisations. Others noted that funding had also become less accessible, as applications were more complex. A few expressed the sentiment that the process was “not worth the money”.

Conversely, some participants claimed that the funding landscape for the women and girls sector had improved over the recall period. A few participants claimed that more temporary/emergency funding was available in the short term; one participant described this as “getting money thrown at us”. The main driver reported was the need and/or awareness arising from the COVID-19 pandemic and the cost-of-living crisis:

I think one change that we found that is [there is] definitely more awareness about BME led organisations, you know, like specific funding for BME led organisations. [It was] the pandemic that highlighted the gap, the fact that it’s obviously in your face.

– QuIP participant

A few participants also particularly mentioned that increased media coverage of VAWG during the pandemic and a VAWG charter/bill had positively influenced funding opportunities:

But the good thing about COVID was there were pockets of money that come from governments after the domestic abuse bill and, you know, they started looking specifically around specialists in refuges.

– QuIP participant

8.7 Contextual drivers of change

The majority of participants reported the COVID-19 pandemic as a driver of change. A smaller number of participants mentioned the cost-of-living crisis. As shown in Figure 23, participants linked the COVID-19 pandemic to a range of positive and negative outcomes. The figure also illustrates a key finding that participants frequently linked both these contextual factors to increased need.

Figure 23: Path tracing the impacts of COVID-19 and the cost-of-living crisis

8.7.1 Adapted activities or services and ways of working

Many participants mentioned adapting activities or services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Most of these organisations cited moving to online or hybrid delivery, with a smaller number recalling delivering food/craft parcels and encouraging vaccination. As shown in Figure 23, some participants claimed that their organisation continued these adapted activities post-pandemic:

So, we have some online courses and that was new obviously because of COVID. … We don’t allow children [in the centre] so actually, during COVID we could access people who didn’t have childcare, people in rural parts of the borough who don’t even have buses or can’t afford buses. So, one of us realised there was these people who wanted support. So, we have a blended approach to that now, we do still deliver classes online. That was a sort of an unexpected wake up call for us actually.

– QuIP participant

A smaller number of participants explicitly mentioned adapting ways of working (for example, by moving to online or hybrid working) during and post-pandemic. These participants felt this approach was mostly positive in terms of improving wellbeing and productivity because of the increased flexibility and reduced travel time. A few participants also felt their capacity had increased in terms of technical skills because of this shift.

8.7.2 Increased need

Many participants stated that the COVID-19 pandemic and the cost-of-living crisis had increased the need for their activities or services. Many of these participants highlighted a significant increase in the number and severity of DA/VAWG cases. A few participants also claimed that they had noticed a rise in mental health concerns, including self-harm and suicide attempts. Another element of increased need during lockdown was that “accessing [other] services was much harder” (M14):

[There was an] exponential rise in need for women … because people [were] obviously trapped at home. What was happening was worse than it would have been before because there was no escape for women.

– QuIP participant

Some participants shared that their organisations had developed activities or services to respond to this need. Others noted the negative impact this had on staff wellbeing, particularly as a result of increased workloads. Participants described feeling more “stretched” because of “unmanageable” caseloads.

8.7.3 Capacity

Participants depicted a mixed picture of change relating to organisational capacity during the pandemic. Some participants felt their organisation’s capacity had decreased because of the struggle to recruit staff or deliver services. Others reported how the cost-of-living crisis was increasing their expenditure on services and staff salaries.

However, there were some positive changes linked to the COVID-19 pandemic. These included more partnership working in response to needs, and increased awareness among the public or Local Authority commissioners regarding certain issues:

I think the women and girls sector is coming together now in a way that has never happened before. People talk because we need to and I think in part COVID has helped with that. Because the idea that we all jump on a Zoom meeting for half an hour is so easy compared to people trying to get together in person and then perhaps people ended up feeling a bit more excluded from it. There’s nothing like working together on something difficult, is there, in terms of building relationships?

– QuIP participant

When asked to reflect on whether their organisation’s capacity had increased or decreased overall during the recall period, most participants said it had improved.

8.8 VCS and organisational challenges

Throughout the interviews, participants mentioned various barriers and challenges their organisation, and the VCS more generally, were facing. These were not articulated as changes over time, but were considered important to note as participants felt they were key factors influencing the VCS.

Some participants discussed how short-term funding acted as a barrier to service delivery and sustainability, as well as reducing staff security and wellbeing. A few participants also mentioned complex application processes, with questions that “don’t make sense” as a consistent challenge.

Another commonly cited barrier was the lack of specific funding for specialist women’s organisations, including groups led by, and aimed at, people from minority backgrounds:

There is an epidemic of violence against women and girls and the funding for our sector is nowhere near the reality of the needs.

– QuIP participant

You don’t always get that money that’s focused on specialist services for black and minority women, which is what we specialise in. When you do, you’re competing against a lot bigger providers and you cannot compete for more general funding because you can’t meet the criteria or have the capacity.

– QuIP participant

I think that it’s a real shame that there is nothing to replace the Tampon Tax Fund. It’s been incredible to see the work that we’re doing.

– QuIP participant

1. Where staff are composed of individuals from the organisation’s target groups. ↩