Although Discovery is a continuing program for the Foundation, this is the first time it's opened as part of our three-tier mental health and wellbeing grant structure. When designing and reflecting on the process for this round we had a few aims in mind:

• We wanted it to be accessible and not too much of a lift for those applying, recognising that from the many applications received we would only be able to fund three.

• We wanted to understand alignment, both with the Foundation’s values and our way of partnering, but also to the opportunity.

• We wanted to understand the broad vision for a response developed with and informed by community. A response which recognised social determinants and intersectionality but where mental health and wellbeing was the primary impact area rather than a secondary outcome. 

We also wanted to bring in more diverse perspectives and experiences so we included sector representatives in the shortlisting process. Our sector representatives brought with them a wealth of personal and professional experience of mental health, First Nation’s health, advocacy, framework development, and systems change.

At the completion of the Discovery Grant application process, and after the announcement of our Discovery partners we will share some further insights and our process learnings.

Trends and themes

Within the EOIs there were a few trends and themes that stood out:

• Social prescribing

• Community supporting community

• Alternate pathways of support & therapy (both clinical & non-clinical)

• Person-centred, holistic programs

Organisational sector

As we know mental health and wellbeing can be impacted through multiple social domains, and this was reflected in the broad sectors represented. The below indicates the sectors from which EOIs were received, however, it doesn't wholly demonstrate the wide range of focus areas covering homelessness, disability, ageing, emergency relief and justice, among many more. Furthermore, while research accounts for a large percentage of this graph, there was diversity within the research partnerships and methodologies. Some of the sectors not listed include those with an advocacy focus, peak bodies, and local government.

Community groups

We asked those applying to share who their community group was in their own words, below is our synthesis of this data, though we recognise people and communities are more than one thing and for each submission there were usually multiple words used to define their community. 

The group ‘individual’s needing support’ includes a wide range of community members who currently either don’t have access, choice, or appropriate support pathways for their mental health and wellbeing. Some of the groups not specifically listed include farming communities, construction workers, people who rent, and men’s support groups.

Types of responses

Applicants were asked in their own words how they would classify their approach, idea or response. In the below we use ‘program’ to differentiate ideas that are about building connection, capacity, support networks and non-clinical responses from ‘service’ which in this graph refers to the development of either a new service or clinical pathway. ‘Model’ is then used to refer to ideas centred on developing new knowledge, practices, guidelines or frameworks.

Format of applications 

The majority of submissions received either directly responded to the guiding questions or used them to inform a written proposal of their idea. However, we also received submissions in different formats including mind or journey maps and video. We hope that maintaining an open format to our applications makes the process more accessible and provides space for people to communicate in their preferred manner.

Shortlist insights

The shortlist of ten EOIs was selected using the assessment criteria identified in the application booklet, with input from multiple assessors and deep deliberation, consideration, and conversation from the whole team. Through our assessment we looked for those that presented as most closely aligned to the intention and conditions of Discovery, and who were looking to build a community informed response that was preventative or provided an alternate pathway of support. The shortlisted EOIs demonstrated how community would be involved in the process, a deep commitment to being preventative and strengths-based, and the potential beneficial outcome of the work.

The shortlist represents a wide range of organisational sectors, with three each in social/ community services, research, and mental health and the remaining one in health promotion.

Eight of the proposed response types were classified as a 'program', defined above as ideas that are about building connection, capacity, support networks and non-clinical responses, while two were classified as a ‘service’ referring to the development of either a new service or clinical pathway.

The most divergent area of the shortlist was the broad range of community groups. The shortlist proposed to develop their ideas in partnership with the following community groups: teenage to young adulthood, sporting groups, culturally diverse communities, individuals needing support, LGBTQIA+ communities, families and parents, people who are incarcerated, and geographically defined communities.