Toolkit Step 6
On receipt of applications, PAVS sent applicants acknowledgement and a description of the assessment process so they knew what to expect.
Clear communication was important, as the applicants were also people with learning disabilities and/or neurodivergent people. PAVS responded to any queries and could offer support or reassurance if required.
Once the deadline had passed, PAVS carried out checks to ensure that groups met the basic grant eligibility criteria e.g., were constituted and had a bank account.
The Easy Read applications required a short film in Round 1, outlining the applicant group and proposed project – due to Covid restrictions. Presentations were made directly to the Panel via Zoom in Round 2.
Tip: If organising a panel meeting ‘in person’, ensure that the venue is appropriate, e.g. bright lights, can be disturbing to some participants.
The Assessment included a Shortlisting meeting as well as a main Panel meeting.
1: Shortlisting Meeting
Applications were sent to Panel members in advance. They read and scored them according to an agreed scoring matrix which had been co-produced for clear understanding.
Tip: ensure plenty of space on scoring sheet – or use symbols: writing styles and size vary so it is important to make it easy for everyone
Having read and scored the applications in advance, the members attended the online Shortlisting Panel meeting. With welfare breaks, it took three hours for 12 applications.
This paced approach was important for comfort and helped in the understanding of roles and responsibilities. It also enabled the administrators plan timings for the main Panel meeting.
Panel members were confident in requesting clarification and cut through jargon very effectively. They immediately identified applications that had been submitted ‘on behalf of’, rather than by the beneficiaries of a proposed project.
Some films did not arrive in time because of technical hitches; these applicants were offered support to complete the process.
PAVS was instructed to seek clarification from some applicants, others were invited to make online presentations to the Panel.
Mencap Ceredigion
Be Sy Mlan/What’s On regional project to provide more activities.
In preparation for the Panel meeting, PPF contacted panel members individually to ensure they had the link, timings, and were feeling good about the process.
This individual approach, clear communication and using the most appropriate media, whether, phone, email or text, is important. There are no shortcuts – which again has time implications.
Advocacy West Wales
The My Wishes in Film project helped 16-18 year olds to express their needs.
2: Panel Meeting
After last-minute checking of running order and video links the online Panel meeting opened with a welcome from the PPF representative. A few housekeeping details regarding timing and welfare breaks followed.
One Panel member who had not been involved in the Shortlisting was told she could not attend the full Panel meeting. She understood the decision when it was explained that this was in the interests of balance.
The Panel meeting, chaired by a Dream Team member, began with a reminder about declaring any interests in the applications. Panel members then assessed the applications, some of which had provided additional information as requested.
The applications were carefully assessed using the LDIF criteria as per the scoring matrix:
- Innovative: should demonstrate new inventive models of support for people with learning disabilities and/or neurodivergent people
- Genuinely co-produced and co-delivered with people with learning disabilities and/or neurodivergent people
- Demonstrate clear and direct benefits for that community
- Prepared to share learning
- Demonstrate value for money
The Panel members took a keen interest in the projects and asked searching questions of the applicants who appeared before them. Although time-consuming, the Round 1 film requirement was agreed to be worthwhile. It really brought out the characters of the people involved and enabled them to explain their ideas with commitment.
Overall, the application process seemed to sit more easily with less formal groups which were more accustomed to advocating for themselves. So, although they might not be rich in resources or assets, applicants felt strongly about expressing their aspirations and did so with commitment. Applications submitted ‘on behalf of’ service users were slicker but the Panel quickly cut through jargon and requested clarity from those appearing in person via Zoom.
PPF and PAVS supported the Dream Team members in ensuring groups were accountable for public money and occasionally stepped in to facilitate discussion. The atmosphere was professional but supportive. At one point the Panel was reminded of the difference between ‘nice to have’ and ‘need’ in terms of an application which did not fully meet LDIF criteria.
Another panel member was given extra time because she felt she occasionally became ‘jumbled’ when decision making. Another member was thinking sustainably, asking what an applicant hoped would happen after the funded six months was over, demonstrating a real understanding of the process.
Gaining clarity about a project and reaching a decision on this additional information was time consuming. In one instance, Panel members asked for more information in Easy Read format. They then requested further clarification and eventually reached a decision through a vote.
It was important that decisions were not tokenistic. If there was any doubt, Panel members had to be prepared to explain a decision. This could be time consuming but ensured the decision was well thought through and meaningful.
Not only did the Panel members learn more about the actual process but applicants understood that they really had to adhere to the grant criteria and involve the beneficiaries in making the application.
Outcomes: PAVS was directed by Panel members to contact Applicants with their decisions. Each outcome email was different, as grant amount and conditions varied for successful applicants. Unsuccessful applicants were provided with feedback. They were offered support and encouragement to apply again in future.
Feedback on the Assessment Process from Panel Members
The Panel members varied in their response to the experience of assessing the applications:
Asked whether they felt concern about having to choose which projects were funded, Panel members were confident in their decisions:
Feedback is also useful for choice and preparation of future Panel members:
Some demonstrated a good understanding of the fund’s context:
Asked about the LDIF experience, one member commented:
Learning the importance of:
- Clarity and avoiding jargon: using Easy Read.
- Really hearing as well as listening.
- Patience and courtesy: putting people at their ease.
- Being open-minded: appreciating skills eg technical.
- Avoiding bias: how 'people with disabilities’ are treated.
Follow the Learning Disability Charter!