Digging Deeper: What our first ‘Learning Month’ is starting to show us

At Access, we use data to understand where our funding goes and who it reaches. 

From 2026, we have shifted our internal governance meetings to take place after our quarterly dashboard is published, creating dedicated space to examine data, draw out insights, and connect them to decision-making, even alongside day-to-day pressures.

We call this process our “learning month”. It helps us link what we see in the data to our organisational strategy. It helps us understand more about how our investments reach the communities we aim to support, especially those in more deprived areas, and how funding can be tailored to meet different needs.

This new approach better reflects our current strategy: using data and insight more intentionally and being transparent about what we learn.

Piloting learning month 

We did a pilot learning month in December, looking at investments made through four of our programmes: Cost of Living, Flexible Finance, Energy Efficiency, and Enterprise Growth for Communities. We reviewed 29 funds, which have delivered £75.1 million through 761 investments to 681 organisations, with data live as of September 31st, 2025 (Q3 2025). 

We chose to explore the question: Does the pace at which a fund deploys investment affect who and where the money reaches?

We categorised funds into two broad categories:

• funds progressing as expected
• funds experiencing delays

Importantly, these programmes are still being deployed. These early patterns may shift significantly over time. The aim wasn’t to draw firm conclusions, but to test assumptions and spark useful conversations.

What early patterns suggest

A small number of high-level patterns stood out, with clear limitations due to small sample sizes.

1. Funds progressing as expected appear to reach more deprived communities.

Across the programmes, these funds delivered a slightly higher share of investment to organisations in more deprived areas. This varied by programme and should be seen only as an initial indication, not a definitive trend.

2. Some funds are deploying more quickly than others. 

Some funds are experiencing delays. This can occur for different reasons, for example when a partner is delivering a new type of product or where pre-investment support needs are high. Other funds are deploying on schedule or, in some cases, significantly ahead of schedule. Overall, there continues to be significant demand for finance.

3. Black and Ethnically Minoritised-led organisations receive higher quantities of grant-only support.

Black and Ethnicically Minoritised-led organisations receive higher volumes of grant only investment products. The reasoning for this isn’t clear but aligns with previous findings that Black and Ethnicically Minoritised-led organisations are more reliant on grants and tend to avoid external financing (see SEUK’s Diversity at Work report and the Access, SIB and Power to Change review of support for Minoritised Ethnic Community and Social Enterprises). With discrimination and systemic barriers also limiting access to financial services.

4. Women led organisations receive smaller investment amounts.

Women-led organisations make up a significant share of recipients but tend to receive smaller investment sizes, which has similarly been noted across the sector. 

5. Other leadership characteristics have too little data to be conclusive.

Investment into LGBTQ+ led and Disability-led organisations is currently small, making it difficult to identify meaningful patterns. This highlights a broader need to strengthen how we collect and categorise this data.

These insights should be treated as early signals only.

Why this matters — even at an early stage

Even without conclusive findings, this early deep dive has already prompted helpful questions:

• How do programme structures or product types influence who is reached?
• What additional support might partners need when working with organisations less familiar with repayable finance?
• Where and how might flexible grant components play a role in widening access?
• How can we improve our EDI and reach data so that it better reflects the diversity of organisations we aim to support?
• How does reach change over the lifecycle of a fund, not just in its early stages?

These are exactly the kinds of reflections we hope to surface. They support our strategic goals around reach, equity, suitability of finance, and sector resilience, not by providing definitive answers, but by helping us ask better questions.

What we’re taking forward

Over the coming months, we plan to:

• Improve how we capture organisational leadership and characteristics.
  Move beyond the current “over 50%” threshold to better reflect nuance in leadership diversity.
• Track how reach evolves throughout the entire deployment period by revisiting findings as programmes progress and datasets expand
  This approach will help test whether different groups are reached at various stages and build a fuller picture as more investments are made.
• Deepen our understanding by engaging partners and internal teams in follow-up conversations.
  Look more closely at the number of LGBTQ+ led organisations reached through specific programmes and explore insights around Black and Ethnically Minoritised led organisations. 

A final thought

Our ambition is not just to deliver funding, but to contribute to a more effective and equitable social investment ecosystem. Diving deeper into the data is helping us build that culture by creating space to interrogate data, test assumptions, and understand what’s changing, even when the picture is still emerging.

As we learn more, we’ll continue to share what we learn: openly, thoughtfully, and with the humility that comes from knowing this is only the start of the journey.