SocietyGuardian.co.uk - voluntary sector
The voluntary sector is not a cut-price alternative to state provision | Stephen Bubb
Charities are being squeezed at both ends and the government could be doing much more to support them
The statistics revealed by the Guardian today are shocking. They must serve as a wake-up call to both the government and the third sector. Acevo has been warning for three years that charities are struggling to meet rising demand for their services while their income is falling. These figures not only confirm that trend, but demonstrate the scale of the financial challenge facing the sector. They show that many charities and community groups are facing the real threat of closure, with hugely damaging consequences for the beneficiaries and causes they serve.
The fact that close on 10% of voluntary organisations are questioning whether they will still exist in five years' time should give everyone cause for concern. The impact of such a loss on local communities and the most vulnerable would be incalculable. Charities, community groups and other voluntary organisations often take years to build up, driven by the passion and energy of committed people. Once they have been allowed to disappear, they cannot simply be recreated when circumstances improve. And while too many of us sometimes take charities for granted, we would certainly notice the impact of their disappearance.
So we need the government to take action. But charities also need to think of how they can perform better.
The low confidence in the government reflected by the survey shows that there is a great deal more it could do. The enormous cuts made to welfare and local government budgets have created significant extra demand for charities' services, while at the same time slashing much of their income. As this survey shows, the situation is becoming untenable for many. We need a reaffirmation of the coalition's commitment to protecting the most vulnerable, and an end to swingeing cuts aimed at the easiest targets. We must also see an end to disproportionate, indiscriminate cuts to the voluntary sector by local government. This means that the government must ensure that the statutory Best Value guidance it produced in 2011 on the way councils should work with voluntary and community groups is properly enforced.
It could do more to support the sector's access to a wider range of income streams. Consultations on social investment tax relief and corporate social responsibility are positive steps, but there is potential for much more, for instance around expanding social finance, especially through access to unsecured loans and making it simpler and easier for people to donate.
The government must also rediscover its energy on public service reform. It is essential that we deliver services more efficiently and effectively to alleviate some of the impact of funding cuts on beneficiaries. Charities and social enterprises have the ability to play a key role in improving delivery, owing to their capacity for innovation and their close connections with and understanding of beneficiaries and their needs. However, they must be properly funded and commissioned, and not treated simply as a cut-price alternative to state provision.
Third-sector bodies have no divine right to exist for ever. We need to see more partnerships, alliances and consortia working to achieve scale. Acevo has been supporting many local organisations to form consortia to bid for public service contracts, helping to combine the strength of local and national charities to deliver effectively for the people they serve.
It is now time to put the third sector at the forefront of a national response to the challenges of our times. As the Guardian's survey shows, there is no time to waste.
Stephen Bubbtheguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
The voluntary sector is not a cut-price alternative to state provision | Stephen Bubb
Charities are being squeezed at both ends and the government could be doing much more to support them
The statistics revealed by the Guardian today are shocking. They must serve as a wake-up call to both the government and the third sector. Acevo has been warning for three years that charities are struggling to meet rising demand for their services while their income is falling. These figures not only confirm that trend, but demonstrate the scale of the financial challenge facing the sector. They show that many charities and community groups are facing the real threat of closure, with hugely damaging consequences for the beneficiaries and causes they serve.
The fact that close on 10% of voluntary organisations are questioning whether they will still exist in five years' time should give everyone cause for concern. The impact of such a loss on local communities and the most vulnerable would be incalculable. Charities, community groups and other voluntary organisations often take years to build up, driven by the passion and energy of committed people. Once they have been allowed to disappear, they cannot simply be recreated when circumstances improve. And while too many of us sometimes take charities for granted, we would certainly notice the impact of their disappearance.
So we need the government to take action. But charities also need to think of how they can perform better.
The low confidence in the government reflected by the survey shows that there is a great deal more it could do. The enormous cuts made to welfare and local government budgets have created significant extra demand for charities' services, while at the same time slashing much of their income. As this survey shows, the situation is becoming untenable for many. We need a reaffirmation of the coalition's commitment to protecting the most vulnerable, and an end to swingeing cuts aimed at the easiest targets. We must also see an end to disproportionate, indiscriminate cuts to the voluntary sector by local government. This means that the government must ensure that the statutory Best Value guidance it produced in 2011 on the way councils should work with voluntary and community groups is properly enforced.
It could do more to support the sector's access to a wider range of income streams. Consultations on social investment tax relief and corporate social responsibility are positive steps, but there is potential for much more, for instance around expanding social finance, especially through access to unsecured loans and making it simpler and easier for people to donate.
The government must also rediscover its energy on public service reform. It is essential that we deliver services more efficiently and effectively to alleviate some of the impact of funding cuts on beneficiaries. Charities and social enterprises have the ability to play a key role in improving delivery, owing to their capacity for innovation and their close connections with and understanding of beneficiaries and their needs. However, they must be properly funded and commissioned, and not treated simply as a cut-price alternative to state provision.
Third-sector bodies have no divine right to exist for ever. We need to see more partnerships, alliances and consortia working to achieve scale. Acevo has been supporting many local organisations to form consortia to bid for public service contracts, helping to combine the strength of local and national charities to deliver effectively for the people they serve.
It is now time to put the third sector at the forefront of a national response to the challenges of our times. As the Guardian's survey shows, there is no time to waste.
Stephen Bubb© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions
Charities: we've got five years left, at best
Cuts combined with escalating demand for services are threatening our existence, say nearly one in 10 charities
Nearly one charity in 10 thinks it will not exist in five years. That is the stark finding of a survey of more than 1,000 charity professionals in the Guardian's voluntary sector network. Yet more than 85% expect demand for their services to increase and 35% predict a dramatic rise in demand.
The findings show that, although three-quarters of third sector organisations are confident their charity is strong enough to be still operating in 2018, 8.5% do not believe they will survive and 18% were unsure about their future. "There seems to be a shift to asking third sector organisations to meet needs that were previously met by government agencies, but with fewer resources," said one respondent.
Voluntary organisations are increasingly alarmed by the government's attitude to charities and believe it isn't doing enough to support them. The survey was conducted in May and June 2013, and 1,256 members of the voluntary sector network took part. Asked: "How much confidence do you have in the government's approach to the third sector?" nearly half (47.3%) said they had "no confidence".
Taking up the slack
"Charities are being expected to take up the slack of government cuts to services, without the financial support to do so," said one respondent. "The government tends to see the third sector as a way to offload statutory services, but with no attached funding," said another.
The survey results echo research by charity thinktank New Philanthropy Capital (NPC) last year, which found that 90% of charities faced a riskier future, with more than half reporting that they were using or planned to use their reserves to keep going. This has "serious implications for the sustainability of the sector," says Dan Corry, chief executive of NPC. "All this is set against a significant rise in demand for their services, so it is easy to see that we're heading for trouble.
"The delivery of public services is clearly an opportunity for the voluntary sector, but there are still question marks over whether the government has got charities on board. It is worrying, therefore, that almost half have no confidence in the government's policies."
A combination of welfare reform and the £2.1bn cut in council budgets from 2015, announced in the spending review means that demand for charity services will continue to rise at precisely the same time as public sector funding is drying up. "The trend over the past 20 years has been for governments to support the third sector bodies to take over services otherwise supplied by local authorities. In the past three years, the demand and pressure for this has increased, while the support, both financially and otherwise, has lessened," one respondent pointed out.
Calculations by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) before the spending review indicate that, if cuts are passed on proportionately, third sector funding will be £1.7bn lower by the 2017‑18 financial year than it was in 2010. But if councils choose to make charities bear a disproportionate degree of the savings, charity income will be £2.1bn lower.
Sir Stuart Etherington, chief executive of NCVO, says: "The combination of increasing demand, rising costs and income levels that are often static or falling means that many charities are under unprecedented pressure at the moment. I think this government still, rightly, sees the voluntary sector as an important part of the answer to many of our current challenges. But it's important that it keeps its side of the bargain and listens to the expertise of charities. The voluntary sector excels at innovation – we can help find new and cost-efficient ways to respond to problems, and we can be part of the economic recovery through supporting people to develop their skills and confidence."
The Cabinet Office denies that the government is not doing enough to support charities, pointing out that £107m was made available through the Transition fund between 2010 and 2012. It also cites the funding that "social ventures", such as mutuals and social enterprises, can access through the Incubator fund and the Investment Contract and Readiness fund. "We know that, for many reasons, this is a very challenging time for charities," a Cabinet Office spokeswoman says. "However, the British public continue to show their support, with giving that is stable and volunteering on the rise. Government support has come in the form of new incentives for giving, improvement of gift aid and the development of the social investment market. At the same time we are opening up new opportunities such as the Transforming Rehabilitation programme for charities, mutuals and social enterprises to help us deliver better public services."
But some participants in the survey worry that, for smaller charities, funding pressures will be exacerbated by the vagaries of the contract tendering process, with the result that they will lose out when bidding for contracts. One said: "I am seriously concerned about the future of small- to medium-sized and local organisations that are in real danger of losing out to bigger providers in the competitive tendering system, or else being subsumed into partnerships with larger organisations."
Another respondent felt even more strongly that the voluntary sector was operating at an unfair disadvantage. "The government's new approach is doing a fabulous job of facilitating the squeezing out of charities by corporate organisations that are better at tendering, despite their lack of understanding of the sector."
The survey revealed that a number of participants had negative experiences of working with the private sector. "I find the majority of companies only want to help on their own terms and are unwilling to listen to us and take on board what our actual needs are," said one respondent. "They often assume that their skills and experience are superior, even if they have no prior experience of working with the client group. They appear to believe all charity workers are incompetent amateurs and that by deigning to grace us with their 'precious' time they can solve all our problems."
But most had more positive views of partnerships. "Working with companies can be a way of raising awareness of social responsibility issues and even supporting companies to introduce responsible practices," said one. "It's vital that charities partner with companies. It helps to expand your reach as a charity and can be an important revenue stream," agreed another.
Given the third sector's precarious finances, charities make less use of social media for fundraising than might be expected. Asked: "How important do you believe Facebook is as a fundraising tool?" many were surprisingly cautious. It would appear that a number of charities see donating via social media as primarily useful for "personal fundraising" for marathons, sponsored cycle rides and the like. Although social media is lauded as a "massive networking tool", as one respondent summarised: "Likes do not translate into giving."
Instead, organisations use Facebook mainly to raise awareness and for single-issue campaigns. As one said: "Our Facebook page is aimed at providing information to our service users, so we wouldn't necessarily see the page as a fundraising tool, but Facebook itself certainly lends itself to getting the word out about your cause, especially if people are able to donate directly, using the JustGiving app for example."
• Additional reporting by Jordan Rowe
Anna Bawdentheguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Charities: we've got five years left, at best
Cuts combined with escalating demand for services are threatening our existence, say nearly one in 10 charities
Nearly one charity in 10 thinks it will not exist in five years. That is the stark finding of a survey of more than 1,000 charity professionals in the Guardian's voluntary sector network. Yet more than 85% expect demand for their services to increase and 35% predict a dramatic rise in demand.
The findings show that, although three-quarters of third sector organisations are confident their charity is strong enough to be still operating in 2018, 8.5% do not believe they will survive and 18% were unsure about their future. "There seems to be a shift to asking third sector organisations to meet needs that were previously met by government agencies, but with fewer resources," said one respondent.
Voluntary organisations are increasingly alarmed by the government's attitude to charities and believe it isn't doing enough to support them. The survey was conducted in May and June 2013, and 1,256 members of the voluntary sector network took part. Asked: "How much confidence do you have in the government's approach to the third sector?" nearly half (47.3%) said they had "no confidence".
Taking up the slack
"Charities are being expected to take up the slack of government cuts to services, without the financial support to do so," said one respondent. "The government tends to see the third sector as a way to offload statutory services, but with no attached funding," said another.
The survey results echo research by charity thinktank New Philanthropy Capital (NPC) last year, which found that 90% of charities faced a riskier future, with more than half reporting that they were using or planned to use their reserves to keep going. This has "serious implications for the sustainability of the sector," says Dan Corry, chief executive of NPC. "All this is set against a significant rise in demand for their services, so it is easy to see that we're heading for trouble.
"The delivery of public services is clearly an opportunity for the voluntary sector, but there are still question marks over whether the government has got charities on board. It is worrying, therefore, that almost half have no confidence in the government's policies."
A combination of welfare reform and the £2.1bn cut in council budgets from 2015, announced in the spending review means that demand for charity services will continue to rise at precisely the same time as public sector funding is drying up. "The trend over the past 20 years has been for governments to support the third sector bodies to take over services otherwise supplied by local authorities. In the past three years, the demand and pressure for this has increased, while the support, both financially and otherwise, has lessened," one respondent pointed out.
Calculations by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) before the spending review indicate that, if cuts are passed on proportionately, third sector funding will be £1.7bn lower by the 2017‑18 financial year than it was in 2010. But if councils choose to make charities bear a disproportionate degree of the savings, charity income will be £2.1bn lower.
Sir Stuart Etherington, chief executive of NCVO, says: "The combination of increasing demand, rising costs and income levels that are often static or falling means that many charities are under unprecedented pressure at the moment. I think this government still, rightly, sees the voluntary sector as an important part of the answer to many of our current challenges. But it's important that it keeps its side of the bargain and listens to the expertise of charities. The voluntary sector excels at innovation – we can help find new and cost-efficient ways to respond to problems, and we can be part of the economic recovery through supporting people to develop their skills and confidence."
The Cabinet Office denies that the government is not doing enough to support charities, pointing out that £107m was made available through the Transition fund between 2010 and 2012. It also cites the funding that "social ventures", such as mutuals and social enterprises, can access through the Incubator fund and the Investment Contract and Readiness fund. "We know that, for many reasons, this is a very challenging time for charities," a Cabinet Office spokeswoman says. "However, the British public continue to show their support, with giving that is stable and volunteering on the rise. Government support has come in the form of new incentives for giving, improvement of gift aid and the development of the social investment market. At the same time we are opening up new opportunities such as the Transforming Rehabilitation programme for charities, mutuals and social enterprises to help us deliver better public services."
But some participants in the survey worry that, for smaller charities, funding pressures will be exacerbated by the vagaries of the contract tendering process, with the result that they will lose out when bidding for contracts. One said: "I am seriously concerned about the future of small- to medium-sized and local organisations that are in real danger of losing out to bigger providers in the competitive tendering system, or else being subsumed into partnerships with larger organisations."
Another respondent felt even more strongly that the voluntary sector was operating at an unfair disadvantage. "The government's new approach is doing a fabulous job of facilitating the squeezing out of charities by corporate organisations that are better at tendering, despite their lack of understanding of the sector."
The survey revealed that a number of participants had negative experiences of working with the private sector. "I find the majority of companies only want to help on their own terms and are unwilling to listen to us and take on board what our actual needs are," said one respondent. "They often assume that their skills and experience are superior, even if they have no prior experience of working with the client group. They appear to believe all charity workers are incompetent amateurs and that by deigning to grace us with their 'precious' time they can solve all our problems."
But most had more positive views of partnerships. "Working with companies can be a way of raising awareness of social responsibility issues and even supporting companies to introduce responsible practices," said one. "It's vital that charities partner with companies. It helps to expand your reach as a charity and can be an important revenue stream," agreed another.
Given the third sector's precarious finances, charities make less use of social media for fundraising than might be expected. Asked: "How important do you believe Facebook is as a fundraising tool?" many were surprisingly cautious. It would appear that a number of charities see donating via social media as primarily useful for "personal fundraising" for marathons, sponsored cycle rides and the like. Although social media is lauded as a "massive networking tool", as one respondent summarised: "Likes do not translate into giving."
Instead, organisations use Facebook mainly to raise awareness and for single-issue campaigns. As one said: "Our Facebook page is aimed at providing information to our service users, so we wouldn't necessarily see the page as a fundraising tool, but Facebook itself certainly lends itself to getting the word out about your cause, especially if people are able to donate directly, using the JustGiving app for example."
• Additional reporting by Jordan Rowe
Anna Bawden© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions
Lean in or lean back? Making the most impact as a woman in development
There's much debate in the private sector about women in leadership but what are the challenges and opportunities in global development? Join the debate Thursday 25 July at 1pm
When Sheryl Sandberg published her book, 'Lean in – Women, Work, and the Will to Lead', earlier this year it started multiple debates on the issue of women in leadership. Why are women so under-represented in senior positions? Are the greatest barriers institutional or psychological? And, as Arianna Huffington suggests, could gender equity at the top be an opportunity to redefine leadership?
Given all the attention being given to women leaders in the private sector, it's high time we ask: what does 'leaning in' look like for women in global development? While gender mainstreaming may be a development priority, there is little visible debate on the place and potential of women as professionals in the sector.
So what are the challenges female professionals face? A recent Linkedin discussion on the 'women working in development' group highlights a few – many of them resonating with the conversation happening in the corporate world, particularly around combining motherhood with a demanding job.
But is the debate too readily restricted to the trade-offs between motherhood and career advancement? Is equality simply a numbers game or should there be more open discussion about career advancement and professional development for women?
In this week's live chat, we'll bring together a diverse group to first explore the issues facing women in leadership and then consider what the sector can do to support women and what women can do to support each other. We are also keen to examine any lessons that can be learned from other sectors and cultures.
Join us on Thursday 25 July, to ask questions, as well as share your experiences and advice. The debate will begin, in the comment threads below, at 1pm BST.
The live chat is not video or audio-enabled but will take place in the comments section (below). To join the panel or give your views ahead of the chat, email globaldevpros@guardian.co.uk. Follow our tweets on Thursday using the hashtag #globaldevlive
PanelAyse Cihan Sultanoglu, UN Assistant Secretary-General, New York, USA. @csultanoglu
Cihan was appointed director of the Regional Bureau for Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (RBEC) of the UNDP in 2012. She has previously help several UN positions including that of director of human resources in UNDP's Bureau of Management.
Rushanara Ali, shadow minister for international development, London, UK. @rushanaraali
Rushanara has worked at the communities directorate at the UK Home Office leading a work programme in response to the 2001 disturbances in the north of England. She has also worked on human rights at the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Jeni Klugman, director of gender and development, World Bank, Washington, DC, US
Jeni is lead spokesperson on gender equality issues, and is responsible for developing strategic directions to support the World Bank's gender and development priorities. She also serves on several advisory boards.
Liz Bowen, HR manager (field staffing), Medecins Sans Frontieres, London, UK
Previously a nurse, Liz has worked for MSF in Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka and London. Her focus is on supplying, supporting and developing committed humanitarian workers and managers.
Marinke van Riet, international director, Publish What You Pay, London, UK. @Marinkekarianne
Marinke joined PWYP in 2011 and has worked for various organisations including Marie Stopes International, a microfinance institution and a network focusing on pro-poor transport policies and practices. She is also a member of the extractive industry transparency initiative.
Laure Blanchard-Brunac, principal banker, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, London, UK
Laure works on debt and equity transactions in Eastern Europe, Turkey and Central Asia. She was formerly investment manager at Proparco in Paris, where she managed investments in Africa, South-East Asia and Central America.
Mary Woodgate, senior manager of global programmes, Accenture Development Partnerships, London, UK. @MaryWoodgate
Mary oversees relationships and projects with a range of partners, recently focusing on foundations with a focus on global development. She has a personal interest in food security and issues surrounding women and girls.
Yaa Gladys Shang Viban, translator and interpreter, Women in Alternative Action, Yaounde, Cameroon
Yaa was secretary general of the the Cameroon affiliate for the Inter-African committee on harmful traditional practices affecting women, and has coordinated programmes for Kongadzem, a women's development association. She is also a board member of various organisations.
Adele Nandan, director of international education, Opportunity International, Chicago, US. @OpportunityIntl
Adele oversees education experiences for donors traveling across the developing world to meet with clients and assess the impact of increased access to financial services.
theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Lean in or lean back? Making the most impact as a woman in development
There's much debate in the private sector about women in leadership but what are the challenges and opportunities in global development? Join the debate Thursday 25 July at 1pm
When Sheryl Sandberg published her book, 'Lean in – Women, Work, and the Will to Lead', earlier this year it started multiple debates on the issue of women in leadership. Why are women so under-represented in senior positions? Are the greatest barriers institutional or psychological? And, as Arianna Huffington suggests, could gender equity at the top be an opportunity to redefine leadership?
Given all the attention being given to women leaders in the private sector, it's high time we ask: what does 'leaning in' look like for women in global development? While gender mainstreaming may be a development priority, there is little visible debate on the place and potential of women as professionals in the sector.
So what are the challenges female professionals face? A recent Linkedin discussion on the 'women working in development' group highlights a few – many of them resonating with the conversation happening in the corporate world, particularly around combining motherhood with a demanding job.
But is the debate too readily restricted to the trade-offs between motherhood and career advancement? Is equality simply a numbers game or should there be more open discussion about career advancement and professional development for women?
In this week's live chat, we'll bring together a diverse group to first explore the issues facing women in leadership and then consider what the sector can do to support women and what women can do to support each other. We are also keen to examine any lessons that can be learned from other sectors and cultures.
Join us on Thursday 25 July, to ask questions, as well as share your experiences and advice. The debate will begin, in the comment threads below, at 1pm BST.
The live chat is not video or audio-enabled but will take place in the comments section (below). To join the panel or give your views ahead of the chat, email globaldevpros@guardian.co.uk. Follow our tweets on Thursday using the hashtag #globaldevlive
PanelAyse Cihan Sultanoglu, UN Assistant Secretary-General, New York, USA. @csultanoglu
Cihan was appointed director of the Regional Bureau for Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (RBEC) of the UNDP in 2012. She has previously help several UN positions including that of director of human resources in UNDP's Bureau of Management.
Rushanara Ali, shadow minister for international development, London, UK. @rushanaraali
Rushanara has worked at the communities directorate at the UK Home Office leading a work programme in response to the 2001 disturbances in the north of England. She has also worked on human rights at the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Jeni Klugman, director of gender and development, World Bank, Washington, DC, US
Jeni is lead spokesperson on gender equality issues, and is responsible for developing strategic directions to support the World Bank's gender and development priorities. She also serves on several advisory boards.
Liz Bowen, HR manager (field staffing), Medecins Sans Frontieres, London, UK
Previously a nurse, Liz has worked for MSF in Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka and London. Her focus is on supplying, supporting and developing committed humanitarian workers and managers.
Marinke van Riet, international director, Publish What You Pay, London, UK. @Marinkekarianne
Marinke joined PWYP in 2011 and has worked for various organisations including Marie Stopes International, a microfinance institution and a network focusing on pro-poor transport policies and practices. She is also a member of the extractive industry transparency initiative.
Laure Blanchard-Brunac, principal banker, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, London, UK
Laure works on debt and equity transactions in Eastern Europe, Turkey and Central Asia. She was formerly investment manager at Proparco in Paris, where she managed investments in Africa, South-East Asia and Central America.
Mary Woodgate, senior manager of global programmes, Accenture Development Partnerships, London, UK. @MaryWoodgate
Mary oversees relationships and projects with a range of partners, recently focusing on foundations with a focus on global development. She has a personal interest in food security and issues surrounding women and girls.
Yaa Gladys Shang Viban, translator and interpreter, Women in Alternative Action, Yaounde, Cameroon
Yaa was secretary general of the the Cameroon affiliate for the Inter-African committee on harmful traditional practices affecting women, and has coordinated programmes for Kongadzem, a women's development association. She is also a board member of various organisations.
Adele Nandan, director of international education, Opportunity International, Chicago, US. @OpportunityIntl
Adele oversees education experiences for donors traveling across the developing world to meet with clients and assess the impact of increased access to financial services.
© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions
Charities that nurture friends raise more than money | Bob Holman
Long-established personal relationships with supporters have sustained a local voluntary organisation in Glasgow
National charities may raise money by employing "chuggers" who cajole passersby to sign direct debit forms. The only individual contact that follows is when the charities send them information and appeals for more money.
In Glasgow, Family Action in Rogerfield and Easterhouse (Fare) – founded by residents in 1989 – does it differently. Local staff provide services for families and youngsters. It has grown from one small room to a large building. Grants have been essential, while gifts from individuals have been a lifeline.
From the start, I wrote a few articles in the Guardian that mentioned Fare, and often spoke at meetings. I never asked for money, but some of those who listened indicated a desire to give. The numbers grew and now stand at 105 (individuals or couples), not counting eight who have died and five who dropped out. I call them Friends of Fare.
Why have they lasted so long? The main explanation is that the contact is personal. I nearly always reply by hand. At our annual camp, a postcard tells the Friends how things are going. The content of our letters has widened from Fare news to politics, the garden and grandchildren. Personal troubles get voiced.
Illnesses and deaths occur. Two women lost their husbands over Christmas. Another wrote that her husband had had a stroke just as she suffered two fractures in her spine. And still they have time for Fare. One man, knowing his illness was terminal, sent us a substantial sum. Likewise, a middle-aged woman with cancer sent money and asked that her name be remembered at camp. We have a camp trophy in her name.
Apart from the personal nature of the contact, why do the Friends support Fare? They say that they prefer to give to a neighbourhood project rather than a national one and also that they know exactly where their money is going.
In 24 years, the Friends have donated nearly £150,000. None are wealthy. Some send their heating allowance; others give more. One shared a small legacy with Fare. One of our oldest Friends instructed her daughters to give to us instead of birthday and Christmas presents to herself. Another knits beautiful baby clothes. These gifts have been lifesaving. In Fare's second year we almost ran out of money and it was the Friends' generosity that enabled us to survive. Once we moved into a building, we attracted grants. But the Friends remained important because their gifts were not tied to specific objectives.
Now Fare endures austerity. Glasgow city council has slashed our grant. Some parents can no longer afford £140 for camp. We have halved the fee. Much of the residue is coming from the Friends. They are vital. I have now met more than half the Friends. Unlike those recruited by "chuggers", they are more than financial units. Not all donate money, but they give encouragement and advice. Fare is a long-term project fortunate to have long-term Friends.
Bob Holmantheguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Charities that nurture friends raise more than money | Bob Holman
Long-established personal relationships with supporters have sustained a local voluntary organisation in Glasgow
National charities may raise money by employing "chuggers" who cajole passersby to sign direct debit forms. The only individual contact that follows is when the charities send them information and appeals for more money.
In Glasgow, Family Action in Rogerfield and Easterhouse (Fare) – founded by residents in 1989 – does it differently. Local staff provide services for families and youngsters. It has grown from one small room to a large building. Grants have been essential, while gifts from individuals have been a lifeline.
From the start, I wrote a few articles in the Guardian that mentioned Fare, and often spoke at meetings. I never asked for money, but some of those who listened indicated a desire to give. The numbers grew and now stand at 105 (individuals or couples), not counting eight who have died and five who dropped out. I call them Friends of Fare.
Why have they lasted so long? The main explanation is that the contact is personal. I nearly always reply by hand. At our annual camp, a postcard tells the Friends how things are going. The content of our letters has widened from Fare news to politics, the garden and grandchildren. Personal troubles get voiced.
Illnesses and deaths occur. Two women lost their husbands over Christmas. Another wrote that her husband had had a stroke just as she suffered two fractures in her spine. And still they have time for Fare. One man, knowing his illness was terminal, sent us a substantial sum. Likewise, a middle-aged woman with cancer sent money and asked that her name be remembered at camp. We have a camp trophy in her name.
Apart from the personal nature of the contact, why do the Friends support Fare? They say that they prefer to give to a neighbourhood project rather than a national one and also that they know exactly where their money is going.
In 24 years, the Friends have donated nearly £150,000. None are wealthy. Some send their heating allowance; others give more. One shared a small legacy with Fare. One of our oldest Friends instructed her daughters to give to us instead of birthday and Christmas presents to herself. Another knits beautiful baby clothes. These gifts have been lifesaving. In Fare's second year we almost ran out of money and it was the Friends' generosity that enabled us to survive. Once we moved into a building, we attracted grants. But the Friends remained important because their gifts were not tied to specific objectives.
Now Fare endures austerity. Glasgow city council has slashed our grant. Some parents can no longer afford £140 for camp. We have halved the fee. Much of the residue is coming from the Friends. They are vital. I have now met more than half the Friends. Unlike those recruited by "chuggers", they are more than financial units. Not all donate money, but they give encouragement and advice. Fare is a long-term project fortunate to have long-term Friends.
Bob Holman© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions
Secrets of success? How charity funders use and share evidence in practice
Funders could help charities to be more cost-effective by sharing their internal evidence
Charity funders in the UK are sitting on a treasure-trove of data that could benefit the entire social policy sector. Whether it's meticulous evaluations, carefully-crafted outcome statements or concise summaries of hundreds of research papers, a huge diversity of useful evidence is generated throughout the investment lifecycle but, too often, evidence generated during funding remains 'on file'. While funders may be harvesting evidence for internal decision-making purposes, its value to others could be higher than they realise.
A range of audiences could benefit if this information was shared more widely, according to the funders interviewed for a new Alliance for Useful Evidence report Secrets of Success? How charitable funders use and share evidence in practice. The biggest win could be for charities themselves, as potential grant applicants. "If we don't share this [internal evidence gathering] with our applicants, they have to guess what we know and what we are looking for", according to Sarah Mistry formerly head of research at the Big Lottery Fund. Grant applicants could use information shared by funders to: learn faster, improve practice identify partners, and become more cost-effective.
How could funders make better use of this knowledge and expertise? A good start is just publishing some of the research summaries already prepared for boards and internal decisions. Funders prepare scoping papers and syntheses of evidence for internal purposes, but these are not routinely published. There are some exceptions - Baring Foundation, for instance, publishes scoping papers at the start of each funding programme, such as 'Rights with Meaning' and 'Ageing Artfully'.
Only some small changes would be needed to make many research summaries public. Jane Steele of the Paul Hamlyn Foundation says: "We commission and publish scoping research as the first step for all our special initiatives – for example, 'Whose Cake Is It Anyway' on participatory practices in museums. We do lots of internal synthesis but we would need to top and tail this if it was going to be published for an external audience."
Sharing evidence with policymakers is also important for meeting some charitable funders' objectives. Joseph Rowntree Foundation actively aims to influence policy as part of its mission to achieve lasting change for people and places in poverty. Its approach has evolved, but influencing remains core. As Emma Stone at Joseph Rowntree Foundation says: 'We realised that we wanted to do more than simply critiquing different government policies around poverty. We decided it was time to do a thorough review of the existing evidence base and try to develop our own evidence based anti-poverty strategies for the four nations.' But not everybody is as proactive as Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Many funders would not actively aim to influence policy, but could do more to share their learning about different social policy issues and interventions that are proving effective.
Funders support a range of projects and there are plenty of relatively low cost, high impact ways of sharing lessons. The City Bridge Trust creates The Knowledge bite-sized newsletter and the Baring Foundation publishes the Strengthening the Voluntary Sector working papers and forthcoming learning bulletins.
Our report highlighted that funders also need to share evidence with other funders. The Association of Charitable Foundation's issue-based networks were widely cited in interviews for our report as 'excellent' and a good place to come together. It is interesting to see how foundations can be very open in these networks, talking about what didn't work, what they'd learnt, and how they could be more effective as a result. This might include the use of emerging media to gather and share evidence. Visualisation tools and dashboards of different kinds of data are being used in a range of different ways to gather insight right now. For example, UN Global Pulse is just one example of an initiative to make the most of the information out there and use it in a live or 'dynamic' way.
There is a tremendous opportunity here. Funders occupy privileged positions and could do more to help open up and strengthen the evidence base. They are the guardians of funds for public benefit, and, as one interviewee for our report said, are 'not really operating in a competitive market'. Is there anyone better placed to take a lead in sharing what they know - whether or not they can say if it worked? The secrets of success are not always held within funders. But by sharing what they do have with other funders, grantees, practioners and policymakers can only benefit all of us.
Jonathan Breckon is manager of the Alliance for Useful Evidence.
This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To join the voluntary sector network, click here.
theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Secrets of success? How charity funders use and share evidence in practice
Funders could help charities to be more cost-effective by sharing their internal evidence
Charity funders in the UK are sitting on a treasure-trove of data that could benefit the entire social policy sector. Whether it's meticulous evaluations, carefully-crafted outcome statements or concise summaries of hundreds of research papers, a huge diversity of useful evidence is generated throughout the investment lifecycle but, too often, evidence generated during funding remains 'on file'. While funders may be harvesting evidence for internal decision-making purposes, its value to others could be higher than they realise.
A range of audiences could benefit if this information was shared more widely, according to the funders interviewed for a new Alliance for Useful Evidence report Secrets of Success? How charitable funders use and share evidence in practice. The biggest win could be for charities themselves, as potential grant applicants. "If we don't share this [internal evidence gathering] with our applicants, they have to guess what we know and what we are looking for", according to Sarah Mistry formerly head of research at the Big Lottery Fund. Grant applicants could use information shared by funders to: learn faster, improve practice identify partners, and become more cost-effective.
How could funders make better use of this knowledge and expertise? A good start is just publishing some of the research summaries already prepared for boards and internal decisions. Funders prepare scoping papers and syntheses of evidence for internal purposes, but these are not routinely published. There are some exceptions - Baring Foundation, for instance, publishes scoping papers at the start of each funding programme, such as 'Rights with Meaning' and 'Ageing Artfully'.
Only some small changes would be needed to make many research summaries public. Jane Steele of the Paul Hamlyn Foundation says: "We commission and publish scoping research as the first step for all our special initiatives – for example, 'Whose Cake Is It Anyway' on participatory practices in museums. We do lots of internal synthesis but we would need to top and tail this if it was going to be published for an external audience."
Sharing evidence with policymakers is also important for meeting some charitable funders' objectives. Joseph Rowntree Foundation actively aims to influence policy as part of its mission to achieve lasting change for people and places in poverty. Its approach has evolved, but influencing remains core. As Emma Stone at Joseph Rowntree Foundation says: 'We realised that we wanted to do more than simply critiquing different government policies around poverty. We decided it was time to do a thorough review of the existing evidence base and try to develop our own evidence based anti-poverty strategies for the four nations.' But not everybody is as proactive as Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Many funders would not actively aim to influence policy, but could do more to share their learning about different social policy issues and interventions that are proving effective.
Funders support a range of projects and there are plenty of relatively low cost, high impact ways of sharing lessons. The City Bridge Trust creates The Knowledge bite-sized newsletter and the Baring Foundation publishes the Strengthening the Voluntary Sector working papers and forthcoming learning bulletins.
Our report highlighted that funders also need to share evidence with other funders. The Association of Charitable Foundation's issue-based networks were widely cited in interviews for our report as 'excellent' and a good place to come together. It is interesting to see how foundations can be very open in these networks, talking about what didn't work, what they'd learnt, and how they could be more effective as a result. This might include the use of emerging media to gather and share evidence. Visualisation tools and dashboards of different kinds of data are being used in a range of different ways to gather insight right now. For example, UN Global Pulse is just one example of an initiative to make the most of the information out there and use it in a live or 'dynamic' way.
There is a tremendous opportunity here. Funders occupy privileged positions and could do more to help open up and strengthen the evidence base. They are the guardians of funds for public benefit, and, as one interviewee for our report said, are 'not really operating in a competitive market'. Is there anyone better placed to take a lead in sharing what they know - whether or not they can say if it worked? The secrets of success are not always held within funders. But by sharing what they do have with other funders, grantees, practioners and policymakers can only benefit all of us.
Jonathan Breckon is manager of the Alliance for Useful Evidence.
This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To join the voluntary sector network, click here.
© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions
How to get ahead … as an employment adviser
Action for Blind People's employment advisory service helps 1,750 people a year find and keep jobs or stay in employment
Advisers 1David Powell has more than a decade's experience as an employment adviser helping people back into work. But his current role working for charity the Richmond Fellowship, where he supports people with a history of mental health problems, is a world away from his previous role with a welfare to work provider. "This role is much more person-centred; there is less of an emphasis on numbers and much more on listening and working with the client. It's not about pushing targets." The reward for Powell, who has an annual case load of around 75 clients at his office in Leatherhead, Surrey, comes in sharing their success when a series of job applications and interviews that end in employment: "It's an incredible buzz, not just for them but for myself as well. It's very rewarding."
Powell is one of 91 employment advisers working for the Richmond Fellowship across England who between them have around 1,500 clients annually. Most employment advisers have completed an NVQ level 4 qualification in advice or guidance – or equivalent. But it is the personal characteristics of an adviser, rather than their academic qualifications, which are more important, according to David Newbold, head of operations at the charity Action for Blind People. Newbold, who has responsibility for its employment advisory service, says: "I can teach somebody how to help a person find a job and the implications of sight loss. But it's those personal characteristics such as motivation and energy, and being able to keep going if somebody has had a few knock-backs, to help them get over that, which is important. When I look at a CV I look for their energy."
Action for Blind People's employment advisory service helps 1,750 people a year either find and keep a job or stay in employment. It has 26 employment co-ordinators in England. The charity says 66 % of registered blind and partially sighted people of working age are not in employment and 27% attribute sight loss or deterioration in their sight for the reason they left their last job. Newbold says many employers have a misconception about the workplace adaptations needed to employ somebody who is blind or visually impaired. mf
Advisers 2"Some think it will require huge adaptations such as Braille machines. But the reality is that most people only need moderate or minor adaptations. Technology has made a huge difference; one of my team for example, now uses the GPS on his phone - if he doesn't know where he is the GPS will talk to him," says Newbold.
The government's welfare reforms and the emphasis on work have had an impact on its employment advisory service which also offers telephone and online advice. Newbold says: "Demand has more than doubled in the last 18 to 24 months. A lot of that is because of the fear of the welfare reforms. I think that the numbers will peak this year because at the moment there is so much uncertainty about the reforms." But he also attributes the increase to a change of culture amongst blind and partially sighted people who believe they have a right to work. "I think in the past a lot of people with sight loss were told 'Don't worry [about finding a job] you are blind, what can you do.' But now there is a whole generation coming up with different expectations. It's becoming an outdated idea that if you have sight loss you can't work."
Action for Blind People's employment service has an impressive record. Some 90% of people are still in a job 12 months after accessing it. The statistic, according to Newbold is "huge". But the charity can still do more. It estimates that it needs at least another 10 employment advisors just to keep pace with the current demand. "For everybody we see there are another couple of people for whom the service is not accessible or for whom we can't supply the level of service and support they want. I don't want people to have to wait for that."
For jobs as an employment adviser, see the following pages:
Debbie Andalotheguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
How to get ahead … as an employment adviser
Action for Blind People's employment advisory service helps 1,750 people a year find and keep jobs or stay in employment
Advisers 1David Powell has more than a decade's experience as an employment adviser helping people back into work. But his current role working for charity the Richmond Fellowship, where he supports people with a history of mental health problems, is a world away from his previous role with a welfare to work provider. "This role is much more person-centred; there is less of an emphasis on numbers and much more on listening and working with the client. It's not about pushing targets." The reward for Powell, who has an annual case load of around 75 clients at his office in Leatherhead, Surrey, comes in sharing their success when a series of job applications and interviews that end in employment: "It's an incredible buzz, not just for them but for myself as well. It's very rewarding."
Powell is one of 91 employment advisers working for the Richmond Fellowship across England who between them have around 1,500 clients annually. Most employment advisers have completed an NVQ level 4 qualification in advice or guidance – or equivalent. But it is the personal characteristics of an adviser, rather than their academic qualifications, which are more important, according to David Newbold, head of operations at the charity Action for Blind People. Newbold, who has responsibility for its employment advisory service, says: "I can teach somebody how to help a person find a job and the implications of sight loss. But it's those personal characteristics such as motivation and energy, and being able to keep going if somebody has had a few knock-backs, to help them get over that, which is important. When I look at a CV I look for their energy."
Action for Blind People's employment advisory service helps 1,750 people a year either find and keep a job or stay in employment. It has 26 employment co-ordinators in England. The charity says 66 % of registered blind and partially sighted people of working age are not in employment and 27% attribute sight loss or deterioration in their sight for the reason they left their last job. Newbold says many employers have a misconception about the workplace adaptations needed to employ somebody who is blind or visually impaired. mf
Advisers 2"Some think it will require huge adaptations such as Braille machines. But the reality is that most people only need moderate or minor adaptations. Technology has made a huge difference; one of my team for example, now uses the GPS on his phone - if he doesn't know where he is the GPS will talk to him," says Newbold.
The government's welfare reforms and the emphasis on work have had an impact on its employment advisory service which also offers telephone and online advice. Newbold says: "Demand has more than doubled in the last 18 to 24 months. A lot of that is because of the fear of the welfare reforms. I think that the numbers will peak this year because at the moment there is so much uncertainty about the reforms." But he also attributes the increase to a change of culture amongst blind and partially sighted people who believe they have a right to work. "I think in the past a lot of people with sight loss were told 'Don't worry [about finding a job] you are blind, what can you do.' But now there is a whole generation coming up with different expectations. It's becoming an outdated idea that if you have sight loss you can't work."
Action for Blind People's employment service has an impressive record. Some 90% of people are still in a job 12 months after accessing it. The statistic, according to Newbold is "huge". But the charity can still do more. It estimates that it needs at least another 10 employment advisors just to keep pace with the current demand. "For everybody we see there are another couple of people for whom the service is not accessible or for whom we can't supply the level of service and support they want. I don't want people to have to wait for that."
For jobs as an employment adviser, see the following pages:
Debbie Andalo© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions
Live Q&A: CharityGiving and online fundraising, Thursday 25 July
Join our expert panel from 11:30 - 12:30pm to discuss the potential impact of the CharityGiving affair
The suspension of the CharityGiving online fundraising platform has raised concerns that the public might lose confidence in online giving in general as a result.
The Charity Commission opened an investigation into CharityGiving last month because of serious concerns about the trustees' administration of the Dove Trust, the charity which owns the online giving platform.
It appointed an interim manager to run the Trust, Pesh Framjee of accountants Crowe Clark Whitehall LLP, who suspended the online giving platform after finding that the Trust held less money than was owed to charities. According to the Charity Commission, the shortfall could be more than £250,000.
In this Q&A, we will discuss the potential impact of the problems faced by CharityGiving on online giving as well as the response to the issue by the Charity Commission, and ways in which similar problems can be avoided in future.
Please note: this Q&A will not be a forum in which to ask questions about individual donations which have been made through CharityGiving. Donors, fundraisers and charities with queries should read the advice on the Charity Commission's website in the first instance..
Expert Panel so farMichelle Russell, Charity CommissionMichelle is head of investigations and enforcement at the Charity Commission.
Daniel Fluskey, Institute of FundraisingDaniel is head of policy and research at the Institute of Fundraising.
Liz Williams, BT Group Improving LivesLiz is programme director at BT Group Improving Lives.
Eleanor Harrison, GlobalGivingEleanor is chief executive of Global Giving UK.
Tanya Noronha, Charity ChoiceTanya is publisher for Charity Choice.
If you'd like to be on the expert panel, please contact Abby Young-Powell, and if you'd like to leave a question, please email or write in the comments section below.
This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To join the voluntary sector network, click here.
David Millstheguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Live Q&A: CharityGiving and online fundraising, Thursday 25 July
Join our expert panel from 11:30 - 12:30pm to discuss the potential impact of the CharityGiving affair
The suspension of the CharityGiving online fundraising platform has raised concerns that the public might lose confidence in online giving in general as a result.
The Charity Commission opened an investigation into CharityGiving last month because of serious concerns about the trustees' administration of the Dove Trust, the charity which owns the online giving platform.
It appointed an interim manager to run the Trust, Pesh Framjee of accountants Crowe Clark Whitehall LLP, who suspended the online giving platform after finding that the Trust held less money than was owed to charities. According to the Charity Commission, the shortfall could be more than £250,000.
In this Q&A, we will discuss the potential impact of the problems faced by CharityGiving on online giving as well as the response to the issue by the Charity Commission, and ways in which similar problems can be avoided in future.
Please note: this Q&A will not be a forum in which to ask questions about individual donations which have been made through CharityGiving. Donors, fundraisers and charities with queries should read the advice on the Charity Commission's website in the first instance..
Expert Panel so farMichelle Russell, Charity CommissionMichelle is head of investigations and enforcement at the Charity Commission.
Daniel Fluskey, Institute of FundraisingDaniel is head of policy and research at the Institute of Fundraising.
Liz Williams, BT Group Improving LivesLiz is programme director at BT Group Improving Lives.
Eleanor Harrison, GlobalGivingEleanor is chief executive of Global Giving UK.
Tanya Noronha, Charity ChoiceTanya is publisher for Charity Choice.
If you'd like to be on the expert panel, please contact Abby Young-Powell, and if you'd like to leave a question, please email or write in the comments section below.
This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To join the voluntary sector network, click here.
David Mills© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions
Corporate partnership exceeds Railway Children chief executive's expectations
Terina Keene says charity was nervous about partnering with insurance company Aviva on major project for homeless children
A partnership between Aviva and global homeless children's charity Railway Children has superseded expectations, despite the charity initially thinking it would fail, the organisation's CEO said yesterday.
Speaking at the Institute of Fundraising's national convention, Terina Keene said the charity was nervous about partnering with the global insurance company on a major project.
She said: "We didn't know anyone in the sector who had a really deep relationship with a corporate. We've had lots of partnerships with business, particularly in the rail industry. Normally they pay for a piece of work and we send them a shiny report about it. But we realised quickly that this wasn't going to follow the same pattern.
"Aviva was really keen to have an impact on the issue and also about making us more sustainable so we can continue to manage the issue," explained Keene.
When the partnership began in 2009 she wondered whether Railway Children, then turning over £3m, could deliver to the standard of such a large company. Keene said: "We had an acute sense it would fail. But now, we both feel like part of the other's team. This has been an unexpected outcome for us. It joins together different skills and strengths. Corporates are still full of humans, of people … we've been able to achieve a lot more than envisioned."
The Street to School project partnership between the two, brokered by corporate responsibility consultancy Good Values, was created because Keene and staff were frustrated that countless agencies had been working on the issue of homeless children for many years, but the number of children on the streets in UK, Africa and India – where the charity works – wasn't decreasing.
"We felt we needed to look differently at issues to make a longterm difference and stop the problem getting bigger, and we've got that," said Keene.
In 2009, Aviva made a five-year commitment to help 500,000 street children, or those children at risk of being homeless.
Impact measurement was crucial for the business, so it could prove to stakeholders and the media, what it was doing. Five key areas were addressed and are being measured including outreach and prevention, health and wellbeing, accommodation, education and employability.
The duo, along with 'Good Values', uses a number of measuring tools and techniques including the London Benchmarking Group model, Passport 2012 and the REACH model, and takes a lot of input directly from vulnerable children about what they need.
Keene and David Schofield, head of CR at Aviva, said the project had so far had a "substantial impact" with 600,000 children helped by working with NGOs and Aviva's global team. And lessons have been learned in many areas, including incorporating the voice and hopes of the children more.
In the 'measuring the social business impact of corporate partnerships' session, Schofield said: "Many businesses are having a go at this kind of thing now. But the challenge is how do we cut through and make a difference, and do something that will be good for staff pride and engagement and all stakeholders? This has been a massive cut through. We hope what we've done will encourage more funders to seek charity partners."
He added that the project had been featured in the Financial Times, achieved mass staff engagement and pride, with a 14% rise in the number of employees who believe Aviva's commitment to corporate responsibility is genuine.
Claudia Cahalane© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions
Beursvloer: Holland's social market place
80 voluntary organisations and 50 local businesses gather in Utrecht to take part in the nation's cross-sector collaborations
Picture the scene: a vast hall contains six bases at which different commodities are bartered, where people in brightly coloured coats facilitate the striking of deals. As the Mayor launches proceedings a gong is struck and for two frantic hours folk mill around, looking for the best bargains. This is no stock exchange: no shares, bonds or money changes hands yet over 90 deals are struck, roughly the number expected.
In the regional government's main hall in Utrecht 80 voluntary organisations and 50 local businesses are taking part in a Beursvloer, of which there will be 75 in Holland this year in different cities. The movement has grown every year since the first three events were held ten years ago. 'Beursvloer' literally means 'trading floor' but 'social market place' is the preferred translation.
Prior to the event Utrecht's local voluntary sector umbrella body invited charities to say what they needed (direct pleas for cash are not allowed) and publicised the event. Businesses - from the giant Rabobank, whose HQ is nearby, to tiny consultancy or accountancy practices - register what they can offer.
Armed with only a spreadsheet listing offers and needs the charity representatives (orange name badges) and businesses (blue) circulate to find not just any match but, through negotiation, the best match available; this 'speed dating' element is part of the fun. Each new partnership is registered and rewarded with a sticker, every deal listed on a giant screen. As the final gong sounds there are cheers: most go home happy to have taken part in the 'new sharing economy' as Dutch academic Jan Jonker calls it. A health charity has obtained a host for a conference in exchange for a day's CPR training; an amateur theatre group has recruited backstage volunteers and take-up for a small training provider's free workshop on 'How to lead volunteers' has been good and the market exposure welcome. A 'Young Moroccans' group had no specific 'ask' but has picked up useful crumbs.
The regions of the hall are labelled Coaching, expertise and research; Communications and marketing; Legal and financial advice; Materials and facilities; Volunteering; and Strategy, organisational and IT advice. At one point the public address system begs 'Is there a graphic designer in the house?' Tea and coffee are freely available and there's a glass of wine for all at the end.
Such trading is in its infancy in Britain but a founder of the Beursvloer, Esther Schoustra-Hofstede, says that once started it acquires a momentum of its own. Depending on the city, experience and sophistication an event's cost can be anything from €2,500 to €55,000 (£47,000), plus up to 300 hours of preparation. Much of the cost is met by gifts in kind like free use of the hall or commercial sponsorship, typically from a big bank or insurance company.
For such a movement to take off in Britain smaller charities and their umbrella bodies must think out of the box and properly engage with local businesses. This is starting to happen through the CVS in places like Merton, Stoke and the online initiative, Tameside 4 Good. But there is a long way to go and many bridges to be crossed before such cross-sector interaction feels as easy and normal as it did at that recent Utrecht Beursvloer.
Tom Levitt is the author of Partners for Good: Business, Government and the Third Sector
This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To join the voluntary sector network, click here.
© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions
Welfare cuts: rich pickings ahead for the loan sharks
The shift to "cashless" local crisis welfare provision has turned social security entitlements into foodbank handouts, and will push low income families to high credit lenders, a study finds
Will the abolition of the Social Fund, the source of emergency crisis support for most vulnerable families, push more people into the arms of loan sharks?
The short answer is, we don't know yet for sure, though comprehensive new research from The Children's Society suggests key elements are in place to ensure this is precisely what will happen.
As I've reported before, the replacement of the social fund with 150 local authority-led "local welfare asssistance" schemes in April marks a huge shift in emphasis from entitlement to cash welfare (in the form of crisis loans and grants) to discretionary "in-kind" support, in the form of food stamps, food bank referrals and charity clothes and furniture.
There were two elements to the social fund: crisis loans, which were typically small £50 loans repayable against future benefit payments; and the community grant, which offered emergency grants of around £1,000 to vulnerable people to buy beds, cookers and other essentials.
These cash-based supports have now largely disappeared under local welfare. The Children's Society survey found that 62% of English councils were no longer providing interest free cash loans. In addition, two-thirds state that no cash assistance is available, and 15% say cash help (in the form of grants) will only be offered in exceptional circumstances.
A huge irony, given the Government's professed desire to target social security support on "hard working families" is that in many cases low income households, who may have previously accessed crisis loans (perhaps because of delays in being paid by their employer) will be now unable to access support.
According to the Children's Society, 25% of local authority welfare schemes now exclude families where an adult is in work. The society's policy advisor, Dr Sam Royston, explained:
Working families are really pummelled by this. And they are the ones most likely to be going to high interest lenders
But its not just the working poor. Here's an example of a typical crisis loan applicant, provided in a 2011 report by the Department of Work and Pensions:
Mr G is a 43 year old married Jobseeker, and he has an 18 month old son. He applied for a crisis loan of £50 to help him buy food and pay for fuel for 4 days. He had received his usual fortnightly Jobseeker's Allowance but 4 days before his next payment of benefit was due his son had become unwell suddenly and had to go into hospital. Mr G lives in a semi-rural area with no car and as there was no public transport, and the hospital was unwilling to provide hospital transport, Mr G had to pay for a taxi to and from the hospital. This spent the final £50 of his benefit, which the family would normally expect to have lasted them for food until the next benefit payday.
Under most new local welfare schemes, Mr G - who you might agree appears to have a very sound case for emergency social security support - will be now most likely reliant on charity. He may recieve a referral to a food bank, or food voucher, in lieu of his families nutritional needs. But in the absence of cash, there appears to be no facility to help him put petrol in the car to get him to the hospital. This again, perhaps, is where the loan shark steps in.
Here's another example, this time a real life one, which I wrote about last month. A homeless 62-year old woman, Dawn Martin, was refused help to find housing by Isle of Wight council. It passed her on to the local welfare assistance scheme. Although what she needed was a cash loan to put down as a deposit on a room, the council was unable to help. Instead it offered her a voucher with which she could buy:
A tent
The council subsequently relented after a local media outcry, and Martin now has somewhere to live. But the absurdity of offering a tent is enshrined in the policy, and again, the likelihood of vulnerable recipients becoming reliant on high cost credit lenders increases.
This example demonstrates a profound problem with cashless welfare: it is hugely inflexible. It makes it very difficult to meet the actual needs of those who require it, and it can be hugely stigmatising.
The Children's Society notes:
It is a concern that in many cases a system of cash loans for households in need have become hand-outs of food or second hand furniture. Whilst in some circumstances such "in-kind" support may be very helpful, this fundamentally changes the nature of the support offered, taking it from a means of accessing interest free loans and community grants, to something closer to charitable hand-outs.
The Children's Society reports that the majority of authorities will still offer support for rent in advance, but many won't. This creates a postcode lottery. But even if your council does provide rent advances you may not qualify, even if you are in poverty and acute crisis, if the council considers that you can borrow the money from family, friends or get a grant from a local hardship charity.
It is easy to blame councils for the absurdities of the system. To be fair to them, they had very little time to draw up local welfare schemes and received only a fraction of the money previously available for crisis help. The Children's Society points out that funding for emergency support has reduced by 46% since 2010. Local welfare is, we must remind ourselves, a Coalition vision.
Ministers appears to think the local welfare schemes are working well, three months in. The work and pensions minister Lord Freud recently declared that the schemes had "landed well," though he did not elucidate on what he meant by this, or the evidence for this assertion.
The society has drawn up a list of recomendations to improve the system. As it stands, the risk is that local welfare may increase debt, hardship, and relaince on loan sharks. The timing could not be worse. As Matthew Reed, the society's chief executive, says:
Families are at risk of becoming the casualties of government changes to the social fund. These could blight the lives of the most vulnerable and come at a time when other major reforms to the welfare system risk making families more reliant on emergency support.
• The Children's Society has produced an interactive map of England to enable you to find out what crisis welfare provision is provided in your area. You can see it here.
Patrick Butler© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions
Advice for charities thinking about borrowing money
There are many reasons why charities might borrow money and the type of loan needed depends on what it will be used for
Should charities borrow money?It's a question a lot of charities must ask themselves: how can they meet increased demand for services when there's less money available to deliver them?
With fewer grants available, changes in commissioning and greater competition for public sector contracts, charities have to think outside the box about how to access funding. Borrowing money is not in itself an innovative way to raise funds – it's always been available to charities. Yet innovation in thinking is needed to challenge some trustees' cultural aversion to the concept of bank borrowing (and having to pay interest), and bank borrowing sits in the spectrum of social finance and social investment, which are providing a platform for innovative funding for charities.
Why might charities need to borrow money?There's a multiplicity of reasons why charities might need to borrow money: to purchase or upgrade premises or to invest in IT systems, for instance. Borrowing may be particularly helpful for these sorts of infrastructure projects that other funders may be less willing to fund but for which trustees don't want to use the charity's reserves.
Is borrowing possible?The key question trustees must ask themselves is whether borrowing money will help the charity to carry out its purposes. If the answer to that is yes, trustees will need to consider whether they have the power to borrow. Most corporate charities have an express power to borrow money and to give security for loans in their constitutional documents. Where there is no express power, the Companies Act 2006 enables charitable companies to amend their Articles of Association, which can be used to confer a power to borrow.
Many unincorporated charities also have an express power to borrow in their constitutional documents. However, if this is missing, the Charities Act 2011 can be used to include a power to borrow (provided that such amendment is not expressly prohibited under the constitutional document). Generally speaking, banks do insist on seeing an express power to borrow in a charity's governing document, so this is a question trustees must ask themselves early in the borrowing process.
What are the types of borrowing?There are a myriad of types of loan: overdraft facilities, term loans, revolving credit facilities. The type of loan facility a charity needs will, of course, depend on what the money is going to be used for. Added to these traditional types of loan are the types of social finance and social investment currently gaining publicity. These might be structured as traditional loans but may include the charity borrowing money also giving a profit-linked return or promising a defined social return on the lender's investment.
What about security?Unsurprisingly, many banks will require security for their loan. There are specific charity law requirements for a charity to grant a mortgage over its property and charities will need to take specialist advice on how to grant mortgages. However, the legal requirements should not put trustees off bank borrowing. It is perfectly usual for charities to grant security over their property in return for a loan and advisers can guide charity trustees as to any limitations and what they need to do to fulfil the legal requirements.
What else do we need to think about?Trustees should consider whether there are other options for raising the money needed. Of course, as noted above, competition for money is increasing and charities may come to bank borrowing because there are no other options available to them. The other key question of course (and one the bank will be most interested in) is whether the charity can repay the loan. This works both ways. Charities need to be satisfied that the repayment terms are reasonable and can be met. Likewise, banks will want to see a realistic repayment profile in place and will want to know where the money for repayments is coming from.
So, what should you do?Clearly, most charities have the power to borrow and many will experience circumstances when they will need to do so. The question seems to be more cultural than related to legal restrictions on charities. Many trustees think that it is a bad thing to borrow money because charity money will have to be used to pay interest. However, paying interest is much like paying employees' salaries: it's spending charity money to get something which enables the charity to serve its beneficiaries better overall.
The charity sector is perhaps the only sector where some of those running charities think that it is possible to grow or develop without external funding. Trustees should look at borrowing as one of several options available to them for raising money and should not be afraid to borrow if to do so would help their charity do its job better.
Reema Mathur is an associate solicitor at Stone King, which will run a "Charities – Should You Borrow?" workshop in the autumn.
This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To join the voluntary sector network, click here.
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Merlin, Save the Children and the business of not merging
This week two major international NGOs become one. What can we glean about what this move will mean for both organisations, and what it tells us about the state of the sector?
When is a merger a merger? Is it when the board of trustees of one organisation steps down and a team is braced to oversee the "phased transition" of operations from one organisation to another?
After celebrating its 20th anniversary in January, Merlin, the international health charity, announced on Tuesday that it was joining Save the Children, another global NGO. But the word "merger" was conspicuous by its absence, a fact not lost on some who shared the news on Twitter.
Maybe that has something to do with the image mergers conjure up, usually of one company aggressively taking over another, millions of pounds spent on corporate glue to hold both enterprises together and then the highly probable news of failure. It seems mergers fail more often than marriages, so not wanting to jinx their union, press releases issued by Merlin and Save the Children speak instead of joining together.
But avoiding the language of business does not negate the fact that the move has a lot to with characteristics native to the private sector: competition, ambition, and the quest for scale and efficiency.
Merlin's chief executive, Carolyn Miller, said: "By combining Merlin's expertise and flexibility with the heritage and reach of Save the Children, we will create a unique proposition; a global humanitarian health force that can provide faster and more cost effective support in a humanitarian crisis."
Miller's counterpart at Save the Children, Justin Forsyth, added: "By joining Merlin's operations to ours we will massively extend our operational reach working together to create a larger and stronger network of health workers around the world."
So what can we glean about what this move will mean for the organisations, and what does it tell us about the state of the sector? On the former, not a whole lot. Both organisations are keeping their cards close to their chest.
A Save the Children spokesperson said: "As of 16 July Merlin's board has stepped down, and Merlin is now part of Save the Children and has a new board of trustees. Merlin's new trustees will work closely with Save the Children. A transition team is being formed which will work with Merlin to develop a plan taking into account the scope, timescales and requirements for each country and for head office.
"The priority is to ensure that we are safeguarding the delivery of our work. For those teams transferring as part of this plan, our expectation is that there will be a phased transition of Merlin's overseas programme operations and head office teams to Save the Children, which we are aiming to complete within 18 months."
Merlin would remain a separate legal entity during the transition phase, the spokesman added.
As to what it tells us about the sector, one line hints at the factors that may have led to the merger. The Save the Children press release reads: "This is an opportunity for Merlin to see its work continue and create a sustainable future for the organisation in a tough external environment for smaller charities."
That "tough external environment" has been well documented but what is interesting is the reference to small charities. With more than 5,000 members of staff, operations in some 40 countries and a reported income in its 2011 financial review (pdf) of £68.9m – an increase of 16% on the previous year – is Merlin a small charity? If so, should NGOs half its size be looking to secure their futures through mergers?
Mergers in the sector are not new. The UK Charities Act 2006 made it easier for non-profit organisations to merge, but an article in Charity Times cautioned against thinking about mergers as a fix-all. Cecile Gillard, head of charities and the voluntary sector at Jordans, is quoted as saying: "If fighting for funding is the priority, it is easier for charities to enter into a procurement partnership, as full merger is a much bigger exercise. There are also a number of other partnership models that could be attractive to small and medium-sized charities, such as federations."
There is no doubt that Merlin's core competencies (pdf), from reproductive and child health to nutrition and health service delivery, will facilitate and strengthen the work of Save the Children. But a merger is never easy (which culture will dominate?) and, as some argue, eschews the kind of transformation that is needed in international development.
Commenting on Tuesday's announcement, one global health professional said: "I suppose that the size of [Save the Children and Merlin] makes this big news. I think there's been a bit of merger and acquisition happening in the smaller NGOs for a while. I would not be surprised to see a lot more of it.
"My sense from a lot of NGO workers I know is that they don't really seem to be seeing where things are going in terms of aid and development – they see it as a change in availability of funding rather than a much bigger paradigm shift. There's still this sense that services for poor people have to come from INGOs."
Only time will tell what impact the Merlin-Save the Children tie-up will have. The rhetoric may be of combining efforts but inevitably the focus of one will subsume the other. And if mergers are a reality in global development, so too is competition. As James East tweeted: "Is Save the Children moving into MSF territory as it merges with international health charity Merlin? One to watch."
This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To get more articles like this direct to your inbox, sign up free to become a member of the Global Development Professionals Network
- Transforming institutions hub
- Global health
- Partnership
- Charities
- Voluntary sector
- Mergers and acquisitions
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Should young people take risks while volunteering?
Volunteering enables young people to take part in well-managed activities that might otherwise be considered too adventurous
Risk is a significant factor in human lives. Evaluating, taking or avoiding risk are daily choices. Yet, without risk, there is little chance of bringing about significant change or transformation, either in our personal lives or in wider society.
Many inventions and breakthroughs have resulted from risk taking, and many famous commentators have spoken about it. TS Eliot said: "Only those who risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go." John Paul Jones, naval leader of the American Revolution, has also spoken about risk, saying: "It seems to be a law of nature, inflexible and inexorable, that those who will not risk cannot win."
Avoiding risk may well lie in our ancestral patterns of fear and self-protection. However, sometimes these fears and instincts become psychological blocks that have little, or no real basis and can lead to the fear of change or failure and the potential limitations that come with it.
Where does the voluntary sector stand when it comes to risk?
Volunteering can provide opportunities for young people and adults to take part in well-managed activities that might otherwise be considered too adventurous. Justin Davis Smith, executive director of NCVO, has commented that young people need to take part in risky activities – within parameters. He said: "The Games Makers were given responsibility and young volunteers even directed traffic. It was about trusting people within a very well-managed programme and it helped their personal development."
Davis-Smith suggests that giving volunteers more latitude and ownership would be a good thing: "It's all about striking the right balance – protection and safeguarding – but not wrapping people in cotton wool."
Jo Grant, director of Off the Record, believes risk assessments should ensure that risks are mitigated, but not necessarily removed. Grant is concerned that eradicating risk in society will stifle creativity and learning.
Must we change our attitudes to risk?
My colleague Barrie Taylor concludes that a core argument for delivering managed risk within our environments – including for very young children – must surely be in the question: how can our children assess risk for themselves when they are raised in an environment that allows them none? He believes this is a recipe for disaster, because young people reach adulthood with no awareness of how to either judge or take risk themselves. If this is taken to its logical conclusion, we are in danger of raising generations with no heart for innovation or for pushing their own limits.
However, voluntary organisations, local authorities and the education sector are beginning to offer glimmers of hope by offering more medium to high risk activities such as skateboarding or parkour in secure settings. If the voluntary sector wants to engage with young people, then meeting their needs by marginalising risk will benefit volunteering because it provides increasing engagement with not only the young people themselves, but their peers and families. This will result in building the voluntary community while encouraging young people to step out of their comfort zone and take those essential risks.
Sally Higham is chief executive of RunAClub.
This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To join the voluntary sector network, click here.
Sally Highamguardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Keep up to date
Advertisement
Latest advertorials
UK Fundraising Social Links
Your UK Fundraising
UK Fundraising - improving the effectiveness of charity and non-profit fundraisers
