![\"Training](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.lihnnhs.info\/getrecognisedforexcellence\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/12\/training-funding-search-record-snip.jpg?resize=414%2C162\")
<\/p>\nThis is the tale of a new library service that didn\u2019t work quite as we\u2019d planned, but taught us a lot along the way!<\/p>\n
Just over a year ago the library service at South Staffordshire and Shropshire Healthcare (a mental health and specialist services Trust) was approached by our Learning and Leadership Development \u00a0Lead about providing a search service for staff members seeking funding for educational purposes.\u00a0 Various commercial databases were available but expensive, so we agreed to see if a librarian could find useful information by using their search skills.<\/p>\n
We ran a pilot search service for 6 months, from December 2016 till June 2017.<\/p>\n
The first step was to devise a search request form \u2013 a written reference interview.\u00a0 The eligibility criteria for many funding sources were esoteric – dependent on being born in particular villages or having a parent in a particular profession.\u00a0 Many awards were tied to potentially sensitive information, such as financial hardship or protected characteristics.\u00a0 So we kept questions broad and let people decide how much information they wanted to tell us.<\/p>\n
Over the six months we received eight requests for searches from five people.\u00a0 We could have marketed the service more, but were hesitant without knowing how well we could carry out searches.\u00a0 Most requests came from clinicians already qualified to first degree level, often beyond.<\/p>\n
The searching was daunting at first \u2013 my main source of information was the internet, but I also used a printed directory and posted on LIS-MEDICAL to see if anyone else had done anything similar \u2013 responses suggested I wasn\u2019t missing much and also made the connection with the Health Awards spreadsheet.\u00a0 The nature of the searching (and general lack of success) made it hard to know when to stop.\u00a0 However as time went on I developed a search process, a format for the results (including a \u2018search record\u2019 to show the sort of places I had searched, even if unsuccessfully!) and a list of useful websites.<\/p>\n
I found some results for almost every search, but it was clear that most results were unlikely to be useful, usually because the funding sources were potentially open to a large number of people and were very limited in the number or value of awards available annually.\u00a0 There were several funding sources that I included in several sets of search results, and I realised that doing this was making the chances of success for each individual even lower.\u00a0 More funding sources seemed to be available for people with lower existing qualifications, people in financial hardship and people looking to carry out research rather than go on taught courses.<\/p>\n
After six months we evaluated the search service through analysing search results\u00a0 and an impact survey.\u00a0 This only got two responses (from four search recipients still in the Trust).\u00a0 Neither had used any funding sources suggested, one because of timing and the other because funding had become available from elsewhere.<\/p>\n
The evaluation provided insufficient evidence to justify carrying on with the service, so instead we listed the most relevant funding sources on the library web pages.\u00a0 This is updated twice yearly and sources found are also fed into the \u2018Bursaries and Funding\u2019 tab of the Healthcare Awards spreadsheet.<\/p>\n