From Skye to scoring: reflections from a decision-making panel member

In October last year I travelled down from our croft on Skye for an unusual trip, to spend two days on a decision-making panel in Glasgow at the invitation of the Independent Human Rights Fund for Scotland to award funds for human rights work in Scotland.

I thought it might be useful to share what I learned as a result of that process. As a panel member I signed a confidentiality statement which prevents me identifying the panel members, the applicants and the contents of their applications, but at a general level I wanted to share my experience and to encourage others to join similar processes in future.

A total of 70 applications were received by the Fund, indicating that probably in excess of £10 million in funding was sought (and needed) by various groups. The amount to be awarded was £900,000. The money was donated by a number of independent foundations and not from the Scottish Government.

One of the contributing funders, Corra Foundation, manages the Fund and all funders have committed to making grants through a participatory process, informed by evidence and a wide range of lived experience.

The aim of Corra was to assemble a decision-making panel that was diverse, where members had lived experiences of human rights and injustice. I was interviewed and selected due to my involvement in Environmental Rights Centre Scotland, my experiences in environmental campaigning, my work experience (bidder evaluation processes), and…. my age! I was the oldest panel member.

In broad terms the 11 panellists were multi-racial, including a human rights lawyer, a teenager who lived in a very remote part of Scotland with caring responsibilities for their siblings, a person with experience in racial discrimination campaigning, wheelchair users, persons with autism, a partially sighted person, two students (law and sociology), a journalist and a person with extensive involvement in multiple human rights organisations and asylum seekers. The panel included two persons who identified as they/them.

Corra reviewed and checked all the applications as a first step. Some applications were not shortlisted because there was not a strong match with Fund criteria. Some applications were not shortlisted as they were not able to demonstrate clearly the value of an independent source of funding for the work proposed. The decision-making panellists were sent the shortlisted applications two weeks in advance to study. Each panellist was required to nominate their top 7 applications, in writing, prior to meeting face-to-face as a decision-making panel.

Each of the 17 applications for panel consideration was debated in turn. Each debate commenced with those who had selected the application in their top 7 making a ‘pitch’ to the group on why they had done so. Those who opposed or had another preference raised challenges and counter arguments. At the end of debating each of the 17 applications an ‘indicative’ panel vote was taken on support, or not, before moving to debating the next. Panellists voted at the same time, by holding up a green card for support, an amber card if questions or doubts remained and a red card if they did not support the application. Each application was scored by the number and colour of votes cast.

Incidentally, the same cards were used during debating while a panellist was speaking; other panellists were free to quietly hold up their green card to indicate support for any point being made, amber if they wanted to question and red if they held a different view. It was a very effective way for the facilitator to read the room, let everyone have the opportunity to express their view and prevented people talking over each other.

The debate on each application was extremely enlightening. We started as individuals with a wide-scatter of panellist support for all 17 applications initially, but the level of knowledge and lived-experiences in the room whittled this down to 9 applications being supported by the group surprisingly quickly. Applications where larger organisations were the lead partner with a smaller group were often successful at this stage. The experienced members on the panel viewed such strength-sharing arrangements as a very positive method of developing capacity and knowledge across the human rights sector in Scotland.

The panel focussed on 4 assessment questions.

1. Will the proposal have a positive impact on those whose rights were most at risk?
2. Did the organisation present a realistic and achievable plan?
3. Will the proposal hold duty-bearers (Ministers, civil servants, regulators etc.) to account?
4. Will the proposal contribute to a vibrant, independent and sustainable human rights sector in Scotland?

As a fundamental requirement, and in my observation, panellists sought assurance in each application to verify that the organisation had gathered evidence of the lived-experience of people impacted and their role in how the plan was to be delivered. Another key factor we considered was the likelihood of plans succeeding, or failing, and whether applications’ goals were clear and realistic. When there is a limited pot of money and multiple strong human rights proposals, panellists took the view there was less value in awarding funds to organisations which were unlikely to succeed.

Further rounds of debating using the coloured cards (it is so powerful when green cards are quietly raised when a panellist is speaking), then voting using blind slips, reduced the 9 applications to the final 7. Numerically, this used up all funding with a very small amount left over. It was not allowed for panellists to deviate from awarding the amount requested by an applicant.

In general, organisations which were successful

• Used lived-experience and qualified advice to shape and promote plans and advocacy skills
• Used legal instruments as part of the proposed interventions, e.g. promoting community lawyering
• Had a strong coherent case (not woolly words) and achievable plans
• Included partnerships and integration with other organisations within the sector
• Had clearly identified problems/barriers and proposed real solutions
• Recognised and utilised access to the Scottish parliament processes and committees and engaged with relevant UN agencies
• Demonstrated how they would monitor progress in delivery of their aims

7 finalists were selected for award by the decision-making panel and these grants have since been made.
As a panel member it was rewarding to see 7 great proposals get funding awarded. What is difficult, as a human being, is to knowingly NOT award to 10 other groups who had perfectly valid and valuable human rights objectives. Ultimately, I found that the input of panel-members with strong personal lived experiences helped me to be comfortable with the decisions made.

The final part of the award process was for the panel to agree the wording for feedback to all 17 applications. The aim of the feedback was to help both successful and unsuccessful organisations in their preparation of stronger proposals for future fundraising.

I found the process of working as a panel member on this Fund really interesting and enjoyed the experience. I learned so much from my fellow delegates and would wholeheartedly encourage others to consider applying for these kinds of opportunities.

D. Bowers
Decision-making Panel Member