Inviting feedback

It is also a good idea to invite feedback from the wider community in some way at key points in the life cycle of the community benefits package and where a wider reaching evaluation is deemed necessary. For example, where:

  • An operational milestone is reached (five- or ten- year anniversary)
  • There is particularly high or low demand for support
  • There is some controversy or criticism around the community benefits locally
  • There has been some significant change in the area’s socio-economic circumstances,
  • or
  • Where further community benefit packages are due to come to the area.

This could be achieved through a survey in advance of the review workshop, or by simply opening the review up as a public event.

Changing priorities

It may, if the timing feels right, also be a good idea to revisit the Community Action Plan (if there is one), checking in with the wider community as to whether local needs, opportunities and aspirations have changed, and thereafter adjusting community benefit strategy in light of any changes. Communities are dynamic and constantly evolving, consultation may reveal that some issues previously considered a priority by the community are no longer such, while others are now more important, meaning that the activity should be re-focussed towards those.

If there are robust monitoring and recording processes in place, then it should be possible to provide an overview of the activity to-date in advance of the review workshop, as a basis for discussion. This might cover facts and figures (annual or overall, as required), such as:

  • Number of funding proposals received
  • Conversion rate from proposal to award and number/ percentage of rejected, ineligible
  • and withdrawn applications
  • Amount / percentage of community benefit income spent
  • Fund balance at year end
  • Lowest, highest and average award size
  • Number of awards at the maximum permitted
  • Amount / percentage awarded by community (if there are multiple communities in the
  • area of benefit)
  • Leverage ratio (matched funding)
  • Percentage and amount of total spend/ projects funded/ beneficiaries per community benefit package purpose/ outcome
  • Any projects achieving particularly strong outcomes or failing to deliver
  • Promotion – channels used, effectiveness (media coverage received, webpage visits, likes, re-tweets).

Identifying trends

Attention can be drawn to any relevant trends in the above data. For example, are fund balances at year-end decreasing or increasing? Are the number of proposals received, awarded and/or rejected decreasing or increasing? And to what extent has each fund purpose/ outcome been supported?

Any relevant feedback gathered from those applying to the community benefit package should also be presented, for example, views on the application or award process that may be given in monitoring reports. It is also worthwhile exploring how the package is perceived in the wider community. It is important that people feel those involved in administration are approachable, and that communities are aware of how they can access the support available.

The review workshop can then ask participants for their thoughts on what’s working well and what isn’t working so well, or is a challenge. It can be used to uncover any discernible reasons behind the trends in the above facts and figures and explore what may be done to rectify any negative trends. For example, are there identifiable common factors in the most successful or unsuccessful projects?

Governance and Administration

Participants can also be asked for their views on the adequacy of the governance and administration. This might cover:

  • Application processes and materials
  • Decision / award making processes
  • Whether the governing document for the decision-making group requires to be
  • revised or updated to reflect good (and actual) practice
  • Post-award administration (payments, monitoring, etc.)
  • Skills audit – are there any gaps in skills or perspectives/ interests within the decision-making group? Can these be filled through training or recruitment of a new member? (see section 5.2 of the module Getting the Governance Right for a list of relevant skills)