Assessment

1. Assessment Objective manner, firmly enforced no one but candidate to speak in interview no extraneous information Businesslike, professional attitude Clarifying at beginning of interview assessor’s role in process, and areas for discussion Offering reassurance, supportive Demonstrating understanding of project aims and knowledge of specifics of application • General appreciation of where assessment slots into decision-making process, but praise and criticism for individual assessors • principle of assessment approved, but both successful / unsuccessful applicants feel that interview and assessor’s subjective interpretation of a project too influential in process Praise Criticism • Poor timekeeping, disorganised manner • Apparent lack of understanding and/or interest in project - admitting not having read application • Treating elements of application with over-flippant attitude • Concentrating only on financial aspects, with no discussion of project aims • Lack of opportunity to present existing successes as supporting evidence for bid

2. The good thing from our last one that we were refused on was that we actually got the feedback. We’d got feedback from the meeting, we got feedback on the form, we actually knew why we’d failed and we also got the advice on the end of the letter to say, if you wanted, it was about the budget, if you wanted to rejig the budget and re-submit, we’d be happy to receive that. So we were then in a position where we could telephone the office and say, can you just remind us. The girl, I have to say, was very careful in what she said to us, because she couldn’t advise us, but when I put to her what I thought were the problems, the potential problems with the budget, she said, I can remember those, so she was giving me clear clues that that was the problem. So I think giving feedback like that was much, much more useful and getting the encouragement to try again. Now, whether that’s given us false hope remains to be seen I guess, that’s when we’ll get the answer. Group 3 It needs to be individual feedback and it needs to be in detail. Even if it’s just a verbal conversation over the phone or something, but you need to know the reasons, because there are also being times when... there’s common reasons why people’s applications fail. And that’s not actually any use. Group 4

3. Feedback • Introduction of feedback correspondence for unsuccessful applications welcomed as improvement to procedure • Brevity of response, however, often thought to offer few pointers for re-application • longer, more detailed feedback considered necessary • conversation about application with assessor considered ideal way forward • Belief that feedback to successfulas well as unsuccessful applicants would be of great benefit to NLCB applicant ‘community’ • multiple applicants hypothesise about reasons for success, often wrongly, and would appreciate explanation for future benefit

4. I think looking at other charities, Comic Relief have a system where you put in an outline bid so you’re not investing huge amounts of time putting everything down, then you find out whether you’re going to be invited to go further than that and that is useful. You feel more cheesed off when you put in that amount of time, done 27 pages’ worth of application and you get the no. Group 2 It’s ridiculous that there’s no process whereby you can submit something fairly simple, which you’re then told this is worth pursuing or not pursuing, which other organisations do, you know, they’ll take an initial idea and tell you. It seems to me from other people I’ve seen here that they’re not finding out that the project fits the criteria until the very end of the process, which is ridiculous. Group 3 If you’ve got an outline of a scheme and we don’t know what criteria you were judging the validity of the scheme, then it would just be something if it said well, if you persist with that scheme, then it won’t come within our criteria. It would then stop a lot of people spending huge amounts of time, putting larger bids together, if they knew from the outset that it wouldn’t comply. But if there was an element that wouldn’t comply, it would just be a waste. And I think my concern is if you did the two-tier system, and I can see the benefits of it for sure, I do think it might raise your hopes more. If somebody said, oh yes, your project fits the criteria, I think you’d actually think, oh, well, we’re halfway there now, and that’s not going to be the case, is it? Group 3 I think the flip side of the coin is that you would find an awful lot more people would just throw out ideas anyway and, you know, throw out the bombs to see if anyone is interested because it just has to be worth a try. You know, it’s only a couple of hours of my time, and you know 80% of them probably won’t get through. That’s effectively your problem, not ours. Group 4 On a small couple of sides of A4 preliminary application, perhaps you wouldn’t get a detailed - you would only get knowledge of whether, okay, that’s a statutory responsibility, chuck it out. That’s all you would get. You would be told, yes, it’s a good idea because of the broad themes, then go away and build it up to be knocked down again. And it does put a lot of pressure on an assessor to make an assessment on a very limited amount of information, as it does on the person applying, trying to get what they say in thirty pages’ worth of application down to two sides of A4. Group 4

5. Attitudes to two-tier applications Would allow NLCB to save time processing applications which fail to meet criteria Freeing up assessors to devote more attention to detail of applications which do • Two tier application spontaneously suggested in all groups • comparisons made with other funders who already operate system • on reflection, disadvantages as well as advantages emerge advantages disadvantages • Many more initial applications may fail criteria, since all the issues not considered • Increase in wasteful applications expected - present system does act as a filter for casual or speculative bids NLCB • Would save time, resources, cost, and stress levels • Would indicate immediately whether or not applicants on right track • Disappointment if rejected at second stage could be greater • Full application thought to assist in formulation of objectives and strategy - these often product of application materials, prompting unconsidered issues applicants

6. My first thoughts about the pack were very positive actually, because there was lots of information to guide you through, it was very clearly written, there wasn’t waffle, it wasn’t complicated. Someone had obviously worked very hard on plain English to get it across, and put it into neat little paragraphs, and the manner it was presented in was very good. Group 2 I like the approach of using the colour coding on the different pages. Maybe that they can build on that. If the contents were just very initial paragraphs or something, before people get stuck into the detail - you’ll find yellow pages are useful background information and help you make your application. The white ones are all essential to you, read them all as well, you can interlink them. Group 4

7. Design • Design of form and guidance notes thought attractive • Easy to follow, well laid out • Creates suitable balance of seriousness (considered appropriate) with sense of accessibility and invitation • informal sans serif font • colours

8. We saw there was so much information you have to put in it and there wasn’t enough space to put it all in. It was like, what do you put in and what do you leave out, because we felt like there wasn’t enough room to put in all the information that needed to be put in and it was a case of deciphering what was more important. A guy at work ended up kind of writing it in for me on the actual form. Group 2 I’m dyslexic, and if I can’t use the PC I’m very, very insecure, so I couldn’t have handwritten on it, I mean when we did the subsequent ones I actually cut and pasted them, so I was fine, but the original one I did I had to get one of the Trustees actually to do the writing. Group 2 We looked through it, and the first thing I noticed was how am I going to physically fit all the information into this. My manager writes tiny, me personally I have bigger handwriting, so we decided it was him who actually physically wrote it, we decided it was him just because he writes really small. Group 2 I can’t type it in, because it’s in a book, therefore you have to do it in manuscript, and my writing’s awfully untidy. I know there are other ways, and I’ve discovered better ways of doing it by typing it and then sticking it in, but I just feel that the form takes away from the image of your project if you do that. Are there no plans to have it on disk? It would be much easier to have this on disk and then just fill in your answer and print it. Group 3 The other thing I think we found difficult and very time consuming is filling out the application form just because it’s not supplied on disk. So, consequently we have to type it all out and then paste it down. It took us twelve hours just to do that. Group 4 My abiding memory of it is just scissors and bits of sticky paper. Is it not possible to have fixed headings on a read only thing, on a basis that we can’t change, points, perhaps they are not used to maximum size, at the moment, you get these size boxes and if you do come across a descriptive, you look at them and say, oh, they’re expecting me to say that much, then you think of more to say and it doesn’t tally. So you think I’m obviously trying to say too much, I’d better think of less. Group 4

9. Space • Space allocated to open-ended questions source of anxietyto all applicants • Size of box taken as indication of amount of information required by NLCB, and this frequently at odds with applicants’ own expectations • examples identified in analysis of application form • Applicants adopt drastic measures in attempts to include all information they regard as important • print in vastly reduced fonts, cut and paste by hand • enlisting scribe with tiniest handwriting in the organisation Demand for electronic version of form as soon as possible

10. In the big one, we felt that they just asked questions over and over again at different times, they are repeating, and I’m sorry, but we felt they were trying to catch you out in the big one, and you had to watch what you were doing... very daunting, we felt that we were repeating and repeating ourselves.Group 1 I actually think the reason it seems to repeat itself is that you’re actually trying to educate us within our projects, so that we know it inside out. That’s the feeling I’ve got after filling it in for the third time. It’s such an educational process, so that when the assessor does finally come out, you’ll know it inside out. That’s what I felt. Group 4

11. Repetition • Application form immediately described as repetitive, but few specific examples of repetition actually given, and none direct • A4, A5, and C18; B3 and B9; C3 and C7; B3 and C22 • Perception of repetitiveness to form indicates that for applicants, separation of project into discrete elements and aspects(e.g. project management and project activity, progress monitoring, assessment and strategy) an unfamiliar and uncomfortable process • Apparent repetitiveness leads applicants to ascribe covert motives to NLCB • repetitive questions deliberately included to test for consistency throughout application

13. Sequentiality • Application form questions generally considered to flow in logical sequence, with specific exceptions B3 Financial elements • Some potential confusion between organisationand project, not always exclusive terms • For those for whom project and organisation are synonymous, B3 would appear to be better positioned before C4 • B7 - B8considered (not by all) to be better positioned withC18ff • Particularly for those delegating financial elements, that these are separated (atB7 - B8and C19) thought potentially confusing B6 C8 - C13 • These questions, unpopular in themselves, thought to disrupt flow or project description - open ended questions interrupted by need for hard statistical information • Suggested position at end ofSection C • Regarded as more naturally positioned in Section C, which is regarded as central element of application

15. Main grants: conclusions • Concerns concentrated around broader issues of NLCB fundingcriteria and problems in the assessment procedure, rather than around application form and guidance notes • specific changes to policy will improve ease of application far more effectively than any change to materials • two-tier system regarded as suitable step, but problems also attached to this approach • Within given context of NLCB policies and procedures, application materials thought to perform well, with specific exceptions, all correctable • sequence of particular questions • terminology used and required amount of detail suggested by box size • clarification of certain ambiguous expressions, prone to incorrect interpretation

16. It was difficult for us to look at different funders, because we’re not a registered charity and some funders just won’t fund us because of that, and we’ve been looking - previously we hadn’t applied to the Lottery, because we’re kind of parented by the NCH which is a Methodist organisation, so people were saying, oh, no, you really shouldn’t be applying to the Lottery, but we were saying, hang on, we’re not an NCH project. I’m quite happy to apply to the Lottery because considering that we’re faced with either that or not being in existence at all, that was how we came to apply. Group 2 In terms of contacts, I was contacted at home one evening. I have three small children, and they contacted me at home at 6 o’clock straight after tea-time, when I’m trying to get them ready for bed and for me, work is work and stays at work. I really try to leave my work at work and not take it home with me, now I had my twelve month old on my legs and I had my three year old trying to climb on my back, and I’m on the phone to someone from the Lottery Board, do you know what I mean? It’s not, it wasn’t a time for me to put my professional hat on, I was at home and I was being, I had my mother hat on, so for me, I think if it’s about work, call at work. Group 2 For the first one, I had a very long phone call from the independent assessor one Sunday lunchtime, when I hadn’t got the papers in front of me, to actually give some feedback onto, you know, what my bid was about and I just had to go from memory. And I actually felt that went quite well, but we got turned down. Sunday lunchtime, it was. Not ideal. Group 3 One thing I must bring up. I am slightly surprised by the need to give a home address and telephone number. Not that I’m worried necessarily about confidentiality, it’s just I think I tend to sign off when I go, and I’m certainly not going to be in the best frame of mind to really answer any questions about it. Group 4

17. P1 Programme • candidates whose applications could fall with equal validity under either Poverty & disadvantage or Community Involvement wrestle with this choice, highlighting: (i) their belief that some applications to one programme stand a better chance than another (ii) their frustration at having to categorise their project according to NLCB’s own systems and procedures • applicants within our sample claimed that an application rejected for one programme might be approved for the other • for some applicants, this and C4 can be the last parts of the form to be completed Home contact • contact at home resented even more strongly than for Awards for All - all contact seen with NLCB as crucial to bid’s chances and being contacted at home, potentially on the hoof, thought to be unfair

19. No problems with these pages All organisations able to identify appropriate personnel for this section with no difficulty P2 - P3

20. I think A4 and A5... I think it’s a bit like a court case, they shouldn’t tell you your convictions. You know, before the case has been tried. It should be more that this document stands on its own. And only at a later date should they be saying, well, we’ve given them a grant already, which they must be able to draw from a computer somehow or other. So I think A4 shouldn’t be there, and the bit just under the box I’m not sure about either, it’s rather a different question to A4. And A5 I definitely don’t think should be asked. If this is something which is being evaluated, the person who evaluates should go in with a completely open mind. Group 3

21. P4 Other applications - A4 & A5 • medium to large sized organisations may have made several applications to NLCB and other Lottery distribution bodies, so require more space - project description box cramped • status and interpretation of project can be difficult for medium-sized bodies to evaluate, since project is often taken to mean both: (i) the entire organisation, if NLCB funding is the source of funds for the project team (ii) the specific activity funded within the larger organisation by NLCB if team already existing beforehand the issue of project continuation or development can therefore be confused - further clarification, with precise definitions, would be welcomed • applicants often made anxious by this section, because notes do not fully explain why this information is required - for those reapplying for a previously rejected project, speculation arises that their new bid will not be judged on its own merits, but negative inferences drawn from the failure of the first

22. There’s no space at B3, I mean they acknowledge you can put extra sheets in, the sheets go at the back and one thing we were told when we rang Leeds to try and make it easier for people that are going to read it, now if you need something as large as that why can’t you have this as a blank space. Group 2

23. P5 B1 • unlike Awards for All, organisations generally more familiar with formal / semi-formal structures and management, and have constitutions in place • sub-groups (e.g. a Brownie pack) of larger organisations, however, can remain unsure as to whether they are expected to supply their own constitution or that of the umbrella organisation - in one example, an umbrella organisation’s constitution caused an application to fail, and a new one had then to be devised by the subgroup B3 • as first question which requires description, applicants here keen to demonstrate why their organisation is deserving of funding - small space considered inadequate to do justice to their organisation

24. Another one I had a slight thing about was B4. Asking about the people involved in your organisation. Because really I think it’s totally ludicrous really. Many others must be. Welsh speakers, or Welsh males, female, disabled, non-disabled, under 26, over 26, white, Chinese, African, Bangladeshi. I mean, what a nonsense, isn’t it, really. I mean why don’t you just say, please describe the staff that you employ, because we are intelligent people and we can actually answer. This is highly patronising in my view. Group 4

25. P6 B4 • however professedly liberal-minded applicants are, resentment caused by these questions • inflames residual suspicion - derived from media coverage of unusual cases - that NLCB assesses applications on basis of politically correct agenda • slightly racist undertone evident in reaction to B4 - assumption that ethnic minority representation will automatically lead to NLCB regarding application more favourably

27. P7 B5 • can be confusing for medium to larger organisations, running many simultaneous but separate projects - may be many staff in the organisation uninvolved with the specific project in question, and applicants uncertain whom to include • further clarification advised in notes • lack of definition of volunteer can cause problems (regular, occasional, ad hoc) - guidance welcomed B6 • identified as good example of where notes give valuable guidance and reassurance, especially for those without formal qualifications in project management • space, however, considered too small to adequately describe management committee’s credentials • some uncertainty as to whether answer requires individual, or collective, experience

29. P8 B8 • this element of application usually deputised to Treasurer or financial head, and generally time-consuming to complete • small, inexperienced organisations generally find particularly difficult, since financial records generally less organised / structured • appreciated by all, however, as totally necessary procedure, and source of no resentment - regarded as standardinformation to be provided for funding application

30. We looked at the different... to actually show that our area was in an area of disadvantage and deprivation, it’s the area where the main focus of the bid was going, why are you looking after these young people as against any other young people, so of course we felt that we had to prove effectively that we weren’t just saying it, it comes back to writing from the heart, we could have just said, and this is truthful, this is a highly deprived and disadvantaged area, full stop. But you can’t just say, we felt that anybody could just say that, you have to prove it. Group 2 Gosh, B9, this was hard. I think it was very easy to misunderstand the question. I know we did that because we gave the same answer as I think, as C3, whereas actually the explanation is - it’s actually the organisation it’s talking about here, not the project. Group 3 Without the guiding notes we really would have been stuck at B9. It would never have occurred to me to have put access to the building or anything, simply because our clients never come to see us. Group 3 Question B9 we thought quite inappropriate really. I remember it. Are the people on your management committee so and so. If you’re looking for disabilities with children, or people with mental health problems, it’s quite difficult to actually involve them within it, and I thought that was quite inappropriate for many organisations. We have two users on our Committee, and we have to be so careful with them, really treat them with kid gloves, but we can’t really expect them to make any major decisions because it would just upset them too much. So I think we had to explain we’re a user-led organisation and not that this is the way we went forward, fill in our aims and objectives and our mission statement as well, so - we found it difficult. Group 5 The community these days, it depends upon your client. In the case of physically disabled people, which is our main concern, they don’t like to be thought of as a community, in fact it’s the last thing they want to be. They want to be thought of as part and parcel of the community like everyone else. But this is suggesting that there is some special community, like in some way disabled or whatever. Group 4

31. P9 B9 • first area of real conceptual difficulty - much confusion and misinterpretation, despite guiding notes • ambiguously phrased - question can be interpreted as‘how do you make sure your project reflects the needs of the overall community?’or‘how do you make sure that your project managers are in tune with your client group?’and applicants remain unsure which question they are being expected to answer • confusion derives from references in notes to client group, community, and wider community - applicants are left uncertain as to which of these definitions they should adopt in answering the question • uncertainty as to whether organisation refers specifically to management committee or to project itself - notes do not elucidate

32. One of the most daunting aspects of the main application was providing the question, what kind of demand we have for the services, and we only had a sort of very small snap shot or a very small part of the community, so using that as an indication and various bits of other information which the social work department resources supplied us with, population, and age groups within the population and people living alone, and so on, we were able to make an estimate, but an estimate wasn’t good enough, we have to have evidence of demand and how many people would actually do this and that, and that was the difficult thing. Group 1

33. P10 C2 • surprise that no guidance for this question, regarded as one of the most pivotal in the application • applicants, particularly if inexperienced, left with very little idea of what level and amount of information required here • identified as an example of where space provided itself produces anxiety and second-guessing: applicants uncertain whether they will be penalised for not filling the space, others worry about including extra sheets C3 • open to frequent misinterpretation, and potential for confusion in notes • applicants divided between those interpreting need as client group need(in terms of benefits to clients not being provided elsewhere) and community need (in terms of the overall benefits to wider society) • the disadvantage of some client groups (e.g. blind people) are considered obvious, and some resentment produced at seemingly being required to state the obvious

34. I didn’t understand why we had to fill this in. Going back to your thing about the two separate sheets inside, I mean it’s either one or the other for both applications, why is there a page for community involvement and a page for poverty and disadvantage? Similarly elsewhere in the form I mean where it’s quite clear that certain things fit into the poverty and disadvantage application better than they do into the community involvement, and for the sake of making this application form a little bit bigger, it would certainly make it easier. Group 2 With C4, it’s only the project criteria, and then you have the make the rest of your whole application fit that one criteria. When you’re talking about what others say, what benefits a community, a cross county for a neighbourhood watch set up everywhere, it says, does the project help people work together for the benefit of the community, so yes, the project did, then perhaps people would become more involved in the community. The project supplies support for all of the voluntary organisations. The voluntary and community centre and it would have done that as well. And yet to have to try and parcel the whole thing up into just one of these criteria, when in fact with an awful lot of community involvement programmes, it runs across a whole lot of them. I really have difficulty understanding that. That any community programme at all can probably fit neatly into one of those boxes. Group 3 I’m trying to find some safe middle ground, because I don’t want to misrepresent my project that we’ve got on offer, but I do want to get it past the Lottery and get the funding for it, because of how important it is. Group 3 It was actually this one which I in particular found difficult, fitting in the criteria, because my project was 50/50, completely 50/50, so I just left it blank and told them to make their mind up, which is what they did. I had to. Group 5 In our case this time it was quite obvious where it should go - it was obviously for the community, but for the other one we did, the poverty, that could easily have fitted into either. But we thought we’d already tried the community, so we’d try the poverty. If you’re applying for the poverty programme, you obviously just emphasise the poverty more, but I could easily have written it for the community, and emphasised the community more. It would have made little difference I think. Group 4

35. P11 C4 - most contentious question in the application, regarded as the most important • applicants all believe their project conforms to NLCB’s funding criteria, but their own judgements prone to extreme subjectivity • applicants for existing projects (usually from established organisations) conscious of Procrustean measures to shoehorn propositions into criteria, to the point where distorted beyond recognition - and much resentment of the fact • identifying a single project criterion often a source of anxiety, since this thought to restrict the opportunity to describe a project to its fullest • applicants can feel they have been forced to misrepresent their project - considered unfair • some projects fulfil more than one criterion with equal appropriateness, and applicants second-guess which may improve the application’s chances • C4 considered intellectually and conceptually challenging, but difficulty attributed to the overall concept of NLCB criteria, not to ambiguous questioning or unhelpful notes

37. P12 C5 • differing reactions amongst applicants for capital and revenue funding • capital applicants unsure how to complete Years 2 and 3, other than to duplicate plans - and expect to be penalised for this • applicants for larger revenue projects appreciate questioning - regarded as prompting rationalisation of a three-year strategy for a project, taking project beyond initial conception into further development and expansion • small to medium sized organisations find C5 particularly challenging - question demands goal-oriented rather than task-oriented perspective, which can represent important cultural shift into unfamiliar territory • notes would benefit from including reassurance for applicants for capital projects, and advice for small to medium sized organisations with less experience of strategic planning

39. P13 C6 • notes here regarded as especially useful - questions outlined in guidance give valued framework for response C7 • for certain applicants, C7 represents a grey area, thus extremely difficult to complete - e.g. Neighbourhood Watch schemes, hospices • statutory status can be ambiguous - many projects receive partial support from local authorities and regarded as quasi-statutory, and applicants unsure how to treat these within the context of their response • existing organisations may already have strong / formal connections with statutory services, and can be uncertain as to their own status • distinguishing the benefits of a project in this project can be felt as an invitation to demonstrate inadequacies of statutory provision - a source of discomfort

41. P14 C8 • as with Awards for All, beneficiaries considered near impossible to quantify accurately for most project types • generally, resistance to quantifying of beneficiaries, since degrees of need differ amongst client groups - benefits to different groups thought to be impossible to enumerate on consistent axis • similarly, some organisations / projects thought to be more influential and significant than others • applicants would welcome opportunity to elaborate on benefits and relationships with other organisations, as well as supplying numbers C9, C9b • little problem completing, although (despite notes) rationale not entirely clear • belief that some offices are more or less generous - much speculation as to levels of subscription across regions, and as to varying agenda followed by different awarding offices

42. It’s this question, why do they want to know socio-economic groupings and all the rest of it, and whether they’re single parents or not? Is that purely for statistics or does that swing some kind of bias in terms of whether or not an application is successful or not? Group 1 If that’s there for their statistical purposes, then it should be on a separate equal opportunities form at the back, that they can then use for their own monitoring purposes, and not pointing up here, because it worries people. They think you’re going to hit the criteria. I could easily have ticked eleven of these boxes for the people we work with. Group 2 I sort of ticked that and thought, if you’re white, middle-class, ordinary people, you know, you don’t stand a chance of getting Lottery money. You know, it’s really so frustrating. Why don’t they put it at the end or something, but being stuck right in the middle of the form, you can’t help but feel it has some significance. I think this is one of the problems that we might be coming to later on. I also feel that we fall between two stools in a lot of ways, because we cover a broad range of client groups. The Lottery only seemed to want us to go for one specific client group. Group 3 Well, we’ve all seen it. Surely when we’ve all read the newspapers and see where the bids have gone, you know, if you’re one of the minority groups, if you’re ethnic minority or gay or lesbian or whatever, that’s where you see a lot of the money always going to... now that’s laudable of course, but that’s not the only sort of organisation that’s needing money. I think we can all think of examples of where monies has gone where you thought, why? Group 3 There is one area where it said you could tick a box for which group would actually benefit from your grant, and it was like a trick question, you could actually tick three groups. And we could actually tick every one, and I thought if I ticked the wrong three - I thought that was a bit of a trick question. Group 4 I found this quite offensive actually. People with mental health actually have no boundaries, it’s not a matter of being green, white, red. Group 4

43. P16 C10 • inflexible ranges - applicants would prefer open-ended question, since restriction to given age bands may lead to misrepresentation of client group C11 • as with Awards for All,produces strong misgivings • likewise, feeds suspicions of NLCB as operating to political agenda C12 • strongly disliked, across entire sample • selecting maximum of three groups depicts limited spectrum of need, and applicants for wide-ranging projects (especially Community involvement applications) feel strongly that they cannot adequately convey the breadth and variety of their client group • applicants would welcome opportunity to elaborate description - larger box required

44. Some other people who are involved in our services, for example, would have much too much in their head to be in a focus group, so the focus group is actually an external group what’s not involved with the service. The young people that we work with tell us that that’s what we’re employed for, they don’t want to be involved in the Steering Group and stuff like that, that’s what we’re there for, they say, they say we’re there to do all the boring, crappy bits they don’t actually want to do. Group 2 If we do individual pieces of work, like we’re running a big conference, then young people are involved in the focus of that conference is going to be, who’s going to run it, who’s going to organise which bits, but in terms of the overall management of the project they don’t actually want to be involved in that. Group 2 Homeless people, and anyone will tell you this - there are all sorts of reasons why people are homeless, but one of their common denominators is as soon as you house them they lose interest in their situation almost immediately. Group 3

45. P17 n/a C10 • for many project types, especially those whose beneficiaries are members of socially excluded groups (severely disabled, mentally ill, homeless) this question regarded as impossible to complete • note indicating that explanation required unfriendly - does not alleviate applicants’ anxiety • examples in guiding note may be helpful

46. I think the important thing is... I think you’ve got to measure somehow, some kind of feedback and I can actually see exactly why they’re asking those questions. It might seem to us a bit tricky, and I suspect you can never really measure the fact, but I can see why you should have some sort of indicators. I think what they’re driving at is that they’re trying to get a bit of feedback, ensuring that you’re using these resources to feed back. Group 3

47. P18 C15 • notes offer welcome pointers, provide useful framework for response C16 • notes thought helpful not just for purposes application, but also as prompt to consideration of previously unconsidered aspects of project design, e.g. feedback, monitoring of progress - encourages continuous assessment to be allocated specific role within project strategy

49. P19 C17 • notes again act as valuable prompt to unconsidered aspects, especially for less experienced project managers C18 • for large organisations and projects, inadequate space • difficult for medium to large organisations, constantly applying for project funding, to complete - future intentions (intend to apply) not always finalised at time of application • complex relationships between multi-projects in larger organisations also cause some problems • for smaller to medium sized organisations, similar misgivings as for Awards for All applicants - second guessing as to effect responses here may exercise on overall NLCB decision

50. C19, on the cash flow, could we have some extra lines please on there. Where we do the housekeeping, some extra lines would be nice. Group 4