SocietyGuardian.co.uk - voluntary sector

Society: Voluntary sector | theguardian.com

Articles published by theguardian.com Society about: Voluntary sector

URL: http://www.theguardian.com/society/voluntarysector

Updated: 5 hours 24 min ago

Letters: Lottery conditions

10 May, 2013 - 21:00

While the Big Lottery Fund will fund religious groups to deliver social outcomes evidenced by need, activities funded by us must be as accessible and inclusive as possible (Gay activists urge review of lottery grants, 10 May). We will not fund activities that are specifically religious or proselytising in nature or that are contrary to our own equalities policy. Our mission is to help communities and individuals most in need and it is our experience that many religious groups can have unique access to some of those that are hardest to reach. We take very seriously the assessment of applicants and monitoring of our grants. However, this task must be proportionate to the size of grant we are awarding in order to keep the overheads of making 12,000 lottery grants each year at a reasonable level. We investigate all allegations of funding being misused or breaching our conditions.
Peter Wanless
Chief executive, Big Lottery Fund

A lot of money in the voluntary sector is misspent, key speaker says

9 May, 2013 - 13:46

In some cases, if the public knew where the money was going, there would be a revolt

A lot of the money invested in the voluntary sector is spent perpetuating the very issues the sector is meant to be resolving, delegates at the Charity Finance Group annual conference heard yesterday.

Speaking during a panel debate on the importance of financial leadership Peter Holbrook, chief executive of Social Enterprise UK, said in some cases, if the public knew where the money was going, there would be a revolt.

"A lot of charitable money ... is invested in perpetuating the issues we're meant to be tackling," he said. He added that he would like to see finance directors being bold in their investment portfolios. "I think too much time is spent doing things right and some of us have lost the appetite for social justice that brought us into the sector in the first place," he said.

He said he wanted his finance director to suggest new investment opportunities to him. "I will only make that decision if I'm informed these opportunities exist," he said.

Debra Allcock Tyler, chief executive of Directory of Social Change, who was also speaking on the panel said: "Finance directors should be pushing us to be more adventurous."

She said finance directors often thought their job was about managing money, but in fact it should be about mission delivery. "The money is just a resource," she said. "Your job is to help us deliver the mission." Finance directors should work closely with managers, and the fundraising team should be their best friends, she said.

She added that the vast majority of systems and procedures finance managers introduced to charities "get in the way".

Sam Younger, chief executive of the Charity Commission, said the 'co-pilot' role of a finance director was particularly important. "It's crucial that a finance director works closely with a chief executive," he said. He added that he had never felt more isolated than when he worked with a finance director who was only interested in the numbers, but felt best served when working with one who was engaged with him and challenged him.

Su Sayer, chief executive of United Response, said the top things she wanted from a finance director were realism and not reckless optimism about things like budgets; timely information with a focus on clearly showing what the trends were; and some slack and "cushioning" in budgets. "Chief executives need to be able to concentrate on changing things for the better without worrying about resources," she said.

This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To join the voluntary sector network, click here.

Charities must influence public service delivery processes

9 May, 2013 - 10:52

There will be real opportunities for the voluntary sector in public service delivery

Charities need to influence public service delivery processes if they want to avoid letting opportunities pass them by, delegates at the Charity Finance Group's annual conference heard yesterday.

Speaking during a session on the challenges of delivering public services, John Tizard, an independent strategic advisor and commentator on public policy and affairs, said there would be real opportunities for the voluntary sector in public service delivery.

"But if we're not careful it won't be on the terms we want, and if not it may pass us by, so we need to get in there and influence it," he said.

He said it was important for charities to think about how they were going to sustain their organisations for the sake of their beneficiaries. "We don't know how long the economy is going to flatline," he said. "The likelihood is that we're not going to see growth for the foreseeable future."

He said government had indicated there were very few parts of public services that could not be delivered by other sectors.

However he said that some of the trends in contracts for the delivery of these services, such as a focus on price rather than quality, and payment by results, were not always sympathetic to the voluntary sector. "We're going to have to think about how we're going to become harder to the harshness of the commissioners and the procurers," he said.

Although there were opportunities in this area for collaboration with the private sector to deliver services, Tizard said this should be treated as a joint venture. "We may not have capital but we need to understand the value we have for our private sector partner," he said. "There are services we can provide in a way that the private sector partner cannot."

He said it was important for charities to remain mission and value driven, but that it would also be increasingly important to have a commercial mindset. "We've got to be much more skilled at risk management and having the commercial acumen," he said.

Speaking in an earlier session at the conference on working innovatively with the private sector, Fran Pollard, executive director of business and growth at Catch22, which has been working in partnership with Serco and Turning Point for a number of years to deliver public services, said it had learnt a lot about contracting and negotiation skills through the alliance.

"It's given us an opportunity to learn a lot of things," she said. But she said it was important for the charity to remember it had a lot to offer too. "We need to keep that in mind and value what we are putting on the table," she said.

Responding to a question from the audience, she said the charity would not be against direct contracting in the future. "If there were opportunities we would have conversations with our partners," she said. "There's room for both."

This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To join the voluntary sector network, click here.

How to become a philanthropist

9 May, 2013 - 07:00

Researchers at the Centre for Charitable Giving are investigating the reasons why prominent entrepreneurs, like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, become philanthropic

"How do you become philanthropic?," is a question that has never really been studied in depth. What does the journey from entrepreneur to philanthropist look like, and how can we chart these experiences to help the cause of more and increasingly effective giving?

Our research team, based at the universities of Newcastle, Exeter and Strathclyde, has conducted a major initiative to understand the experiences of entrepreneurs turned philanthropists: the 'big-givers' of all backgrounds, whether they are local or international players, who have become committed to sharing their wealth. The group will present its findings on "Understanding the philanthropic journey" at a CGAP Conference in London on Thursday where they will co-present with two leading entrepreneur-philanthropists: Sir Tom Hunter of West Coast Capital and Hunter Foundation, and Rakesh Bharti Mittal of Bharti Enterprises and Bharti Foundation.

We want this research to show there is a logical process at play which many struggle to understand. Entrepreneurs apply the same rigour and disciplines from the world of commerce to the charitable sector, which suggests there is in fact a science to giving at this level that can be replicated and learned from.

Entrepreneurs bring business methods and disciplines to philanthropy – they don't like wasting money and like to be focussed and planned and their charitable partners to be vetted. Andrew Carnegie, a man famed for the mass manufacture of steel in America, is perhaps the best example of this.

His pervasive influence within the field of philanthropy stems more than anything from his treatise on 'wealth', known as 'The Gospel of Wealth', where he concludes: "the problem of our age is the proper administration of wealth, so that the ties of brotherhood may still bind together the rich and the poor in harmonious relationship." Through his charitable projects Andrew Carnegie gave away almost everything he had earned to a wide range of projects, from arts to education. Entrepreneurs tend to be gifted in recognising and consciously applying the principles of capital accumulation. This is critical to making philanthropy more effective at a time when there is increasing inequality of wealth and income. What are the hallmarks of entrepreneurial philanthropy? Our research shows the following:

• It is the pursuit by entrepreneurs on a not-for-profit basis of big social objectives through active involvement of their economic, cultural, social and symbolic resources.

• They apply business-like methods when making social investments: key performance indicators and rates of return.

• Entrepreneurs invest more than simply money to their causes: time, connections, the 'know-how', branding.

• They like to leverage investments and frequently partner with others, including governments.

• Businessmen and women don't believe in giving handouts. They want to help others to help themselves.

Our studies have also shown that philanthropy is not a one way street. Entrepreneurs benefit from forms of capital, like honorary titles, degrees and recognition. Their world becomes a lot richer, they meet interesting people and come to mix in very interesting circles. What they learn can be turned to economic advantage. The possession of this status and level of connections within the world helps build philanthropy further over time. Therefore, giving encourages these greater returns and helps facilitate more philanthropic enterprises.

A large aspect of the research has been interviewing businessmen and women confronted by the burdensome issue of what to do with more money than they could ever spend in a lifetime. We have asked why they decided to become philanthropic and what they got out of it.

Their motivation is often revealed in their personal experiences and personal values. What makes them get involved in the voluntary sector is commonly understood to be a landmark event within their life that triggers a transition. One entrepreneur said the death of his mother from cancer in 2008 had prompted the change:

"Suddenly life felt a bit meaningless. We were sitting there in a big house in Berkshire, with a house in the south of France, and two beautiful little girls and everything seems perfect ... It [the death of his mother] made me feel more emotional ... It probably made me start thinking about giving ... I think another thing is when I sold the business I didn't know, I felt like I wanted to start giving but I didn't know how to or who to give to or what way to do it, I hadn't a clue, no one teaches you how to be philanthropic."

While entrepreneurs have all the intellectual capacity to make giving more effective, they frequently search for the guidance to become philanthropic. What we need are more stories to be told by philanthropists because they are its best advocates.

We also need access to fellow philanthropists to share their experiences. The level of giving relative to wealth and also need is nowhere near as high as it could or should be. What we witness are some very generous individuals among a lot of people who do little or nothing. A lot can be learned from these practised entrepreneurs and philanthropic groups, such as The Philanthropy Fellowship led by UK Community Foundations and funded by the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation, to inspire more and better philanthropy.

The voluntary redistribution of wealth, however, cannot serve as a substitute for welfare in times of austerity. IMF figures (2012) show there is a clear relationship between income inequality and the dynamics of the global economy. The gap between the top 5% and the rest of us has risen very sharply since the early 1980s in the UK & US and other countries of the developed world. As profits and top pay rise it becomes more obvious that this is unsustainable. The power of entrepreneurial philanthropy lies in helping others to help themselves and seize opportunities for betterment.

Professor Charles Harvey is pro-vice-chancellor for humanities and social sciences at Newcastle University

This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To join the Guardian Voluntary Sector Network, click here.

Short and snappy 'soundbites' could be the future for impact reporting

8 May, 2013 - 14:45

Joe Saxton tells CFG conference that 'tweets' and 'nuggets of information' are more effective in communicating impact than large 30-50 page reports

Charities should not produce impact reports but should instead concentrate on putting together soundbites to describe the impact they are having, delegates at the Charity Finance Group's annual conference were told today.

Speaking in London, Joe Saxton, co-founder of nfpSynergy, said in a session about accountability and transparency that he would encourage charities not to publish an impact report.

"If you have one everyone thinks the job is done," he said. "And by and large most impact reports that I've read are not good at telling me what the impact was."

He said charities should instead consider whether they could tweet about the impact they have had. "Turn the impact report into soundbites," he said.

Saxton said the most important part of impact reporting was knowing the audience you were talking to. "Often [impact reporting] is not designed with the audience in mind," he said.

Speaking to the network after his speech, Saxton said that if someone asked him the top 10 things a charity should do when it came to impact reporting, he would not include writing an impact report among them. "A 30-50 page impact report is not the best way to do it," he said. "It should be more about nuggets of information that are short and snappy."

Kate Lee, chief executive of Myton Hospice Group, who held the session with Saxton, said that when it came to being transparent and accountable, charities should publish calculations alongside any information on how much they spent on admin.

"Understanding how you calculated how much you spent on admin is as important as what figure you publish," she said.

She said charities should also be thinking about publishing information on other areas including complaints they had received and what they learnt from them, and the content of board meetings.

"There may be some competitive advantage in becoming more transparent," she said. "There's evidence to show that [being transparent] is one of the key traits needed to help build innovation."

Lee said it was increasingly important for charities to become more transparent in order to ensure the public understood how they worked. "As the UK public sector is becoming more transparent, the pressure is growing on charities to do the same," she said.

This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To join the voluntary sector network, click here.

Five steps for moving the debate on charity overheads forward

8 May, 2013 - 07:00

We must define and rebrand 'admin' costs – as vital to a charity's management – and admit that some spend too little on the cause

There is a cold war in the charity world. On one side are the public and the vast majority of donors. The public don't like admin costs, overheads and waste, and they don't like to think of their money going to anything but the charity's cause.

Our research at nfpSynergy shows this antipathy to costs and overheads very clearly. People typically think about 10% of their donation at most should go on admin and about 20% be spent on fundraising.

They see admin costs as worse than fundraising costs. Their top worry is how much of their money goes on "the cause". They are also concerned about high salaries for chief executives and are more likely to see them as admin costs rather than the cause.

In this respect the public are very conservative. We may not like what they think, but as donors they should not be ignored.

In the opposing corner are those who hate it when donors and philanthropists tell them how they think charities should be run. The very same people who would claim that it's important to be donor-centric then bust a blood vessel when those donors tell them a home truth they don't want to hear: they think donors should be seen giving not heard complaining.

I describe it as a cold war because, for the most part, these two differing views on admin and overheads don't get discussed much. Only occasionally does a skirmish break out that symbolises the whole debate. One such skirmish was the recent interview with philanthropist Gina Miller.

When people like Gina Miller, a substantial donor, raise concerns about the levels of salaries and admin costs, it unleashes an outpouring of anger and venom from people in the sector. Yet from my experience and our research, her perspective is very close to that of many members of the public.

The polarised and subterranean nature of this debate is both sterile and unhelpful. The public appear to want no money to be spent on admin at all, while various sector commentators end up sounding as if it's fine for a charity to spend all its money on it.

There's no doubt that we have managed to end up with admin costs branded as an organisational stain impossible to remove, rather than the lubricant that makes charities work effectively. But, in my book, any charity whose formal accounts indicate administration costs of more than about 10%, and fundraising costs of more than 20-30%, has probably got the balance of its expenditure wrong.

My views matter little though – it's the public and donors we need to persuade, and telling them that there's "no such thing as admin costs" is hardly likely to change many minds.

So, here are my five steps for moving the debate forward:

1. Let's define admin costs. One key problem is admin costs appear to be poorly defined. The amount of money really spent on "admin" is fluid. Is the chief executive admin? Is the administrator to a team of service-delivery staff admin or the cause? What about the cost of buildings and offices? The list of queries is almost endless. The level of admin costs for a charity is currently what the charity wants it to be. The Charity Commission needs to fix this; hopefully the forthcoming SORP consultation will help.

2. Let's stop talking "admin" and start talking "management". We need to rebrand admin costs to indicate that they are a vital ingredient of effective charity management. As long as we give the appearance of admin being a waste we can't quite eradicate, we shouldn't be surprised that the public don't like it. I must confess that charities that go on about every penny going straight to the cause don't help, particularly when they have admin costs similar to most others, whether they like to admit it or not.

3. We need to explain more and attack less. In a battle of charities vs the public, it will be charities that need to do most of the work to change attitudes. Whatever we call admin, we need to explain why it's a necessary cost and why without it, donors' money would be less well spent. We cannot expect that the average donor will have their views changed on overheads if it isn't charities that tell them. It's a fantastic opportunity to engage donors and supporters and explain how a modern charity works. So try this simple test: count on your fingers the articles by charities explaining why they spend what they spend on fundraising and admin. Bet you didn't need two hands.

4. We need to come up with new indices to judge charities by. We can't be surprised that the public judge a charity by its admin or fundraising costs since those costs are readily available and can be understood instantly. Compare that to the lengthy and usually turgid annual or impact reports that charities produce. If we want people to stop judging charities by admin or fundraising costs, we need to give them alternatives that are as simple and available as those they replace.

5. We need to admit that charities can spend too little on the cause. Recently, a charity rang me asking for money and it only spent 5% of its income on the cause. For me, that's too little and I sincerely hope that it would be too little for most people in the charity sector. I would suggest that alarm bells should start to ring if any charity spends less than half of its income on the cause. There are exceptions to this, such as charities with high levels of trading income and, on average, smaller charities. We could start with a clear analysis of the typical level of fundraising and admin costs for the largest fundraising charities. That way, we'll know what the norm is.

We could rant and rave about people who criticise the levels of admin costs in charities, but I'd rather we accepted that their views are typical of many and work to change them. Shouting at outsiders for their ignorance may satisfy a feeling of righteous indignation, but it will do little to change anybody's views. And if we want people to donate more, we need to understand where they are coming from, not just tell them where we want them to go.

Joe Saxton is founder of NfpSynergy.

This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To join the voluntary sector network, click here.

Joe Saxton
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

Save the Children mothers' index: 10 worst countries in sub-Saharan Africa

7 May, 2013 - 11:55

Finland has lowest rates of mother and child mortality while US scores relatively poorly on maternal health

The worst place in the world to give birth is the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where a woman has a one in 30 chance of dying as a result – while the best is Finland, where the risk of death is one in 12,200, according to a new analysis.

The Save the Children mothers' index, now in its 14th year, records not only the likelihood of death in pregnancy or labour but also the difficulties women face when they become mothers. The charity scores countries on maternal health, child mortality, education, women's income and women's political status.

The top end of the table is dominated by European countries and Australia. The UK manages only 25th place, although it is ranked higher than the US at 30th.

"The 10 top-ranked countries, in general, are among the best countries in the world for mothers' and children's health, educational, economic and political status," says the report. "The 10 bottom-ranked countries – all from sub-Saharan Africa – are a reverse image of the top 10, performing poorly on all indicators. Conditions for mothers and their children in these countries are devastating."

In the bottom 10 countries, which include Nigeria, Gambia and Somalia, one woman in 30 is likely to die of a pregnancy-related cause. In these countries, one child in seven dies under the age of five, compared with one in 345 in Finland. Children get between two and nine years of education at best, whereas in Finland they can expect 17.

While the US scores well on the educational and economic status of women – 10th on both in the world – it is way behind the high-scoring countries on maternal health (46th) and children's wellbeing (41st) and does badly on the political status of women (89th) – women hold only 18% of seats in Congress.

Only five developed countries in the world – Albania, Latvia, Moldova, the Russian Federation and Ukraine – do worse than the US on maternal mortality. Women in the US face a one in 2,400 risk of dying of causes related to pregnancy or childbirth. "A woman in the US is more than 10 times as likely as a woman in Estonia, Greece or Singapore to eventually die from a pregnancy-related cause," says the report.

Mortality among under-fives is 7.5 per 1,000 births in the US. "This is roughly on par with rates in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Qatar and Slovakia. At this rate, children in the US are three times as likely as children in Iceland to die before their 5th birthday," says the report.

Save the Children International's chief executive, Jasmine Whitbread, said: "By investing in mothers and children, nations are investing in their future prosperity. If women are educated, are represented politically, and have access to good-quality maternal and child care, then they and their children are much more likely to survive and thrive – and so are the societies they live in. Huge progress has been made across the developing world, but much more can be done to save and improve millions of the poorest mothers' and newborns' lives."

For the first time, the charity has compiled a separate index on newborn deaths. While deaths of children under five around the world have come down substantially in recent years, there has been little progress on newborns. The riskiest day of a child's life is the day of its birth, says Save the Children: 1 million die on that day every year.

The most dangerous place to be born, the index shows, is Somalia, followed by the Democratic Republic of the Congo; these are also the two most unfavourable countries for mothers. Babies in sub-Saharan Africa are more than seven times as likely to die on the day they are born than babies in industrialised countries; Luxembourg, Iceland and then Cyprus have the best safety records.

The US has about 50% more deaths on the day of birth than all other industrialised countries combined, which the report says is partly due to the high numbers of premature births.

Save the Children is pressing for interventions that would bring down the death toll in the developing world: injectable antibiotics to treat sepsis and pneumonia in newborns, corticosteroid injections for women in premature labour to help babies' lung function at birth, resuscitation devices, and antiseptic to clean the umbilical cord and prevent fatal infections. It also calls for more skilled birth attendants and more effort to improve women's status, education and nutrition.

Sarah Boseley
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

Manage your board by building great relationships

6 May, 2013 - 07:00

Your organisation will be more productive if you nurture the relationship between board and executive

Many charity finance professionals gather each year for Charity Finance Group conference. This year I'm presenting alongside my chair of trustees on the topic of 'managing your board'. I'm looking forward to it because the relationship between the board and executive in CFG is great. I'm wondering if this is simply good fortune or whether the way we approach our relationships holds the key to a happy marriage between governance and delivery.

Picture the scene – 10 serious senior charity professionals, a chief executive and four senior managers making paper aeroplanes. Conversation flows and there is obvious trust and mutual respect. Chatter and laughter is abundant, interspersed with challenging questions and serious thinking. The event? Our strategic planning day. While we had fun, we absolutely nailed some taxing strategic questions, moved the organisation on a step or two and underlined the importance of good relationships.

It's a propensity, not just of finance people, to focus unduly on transactions when we work. We tend to think it is OK to have a 'bit of fun' but then we must knuckle down to 'some real work'. We focus on getting the job done, on delivering services. This focus is often at the expense of building relationships.

I think this approach is outdated. The old adage 'you shouldn't mix business and pleasure' is misplaced, business should be pleasurable. First, you spend a great deal of time at work and life is too short to be miserable. Second, having fun, knowing your colleagues, understanding what drives your board and taking time to build great relationships yields such dividends that the work becomes far easier.

Given our human imperfections and the constant challenges of change, having strong relationships help. In the right conditions individuals can work together, find solutions, be creative, adapt and change with less angst, fewer resources and in less time.

You can remove blame from your work culture, empower individuals, and think across roles only if trust and mutual respect is nurtured. That happens when you attach sufficient importance to relationships.

Remember, people don't actually divorce over the toothpaste tube being squeezed in the middle. That proverbial cause is a single minor transaction indicative of a failed relationship. So while what we have here at CFG may not be perfect, it is more productive, resilient and positive as a result of investing in how we work. If you want it for your organisation, spend more time nurturing the relationship between board and executive – and you'll get a marriage made in heaven, not a messy divorce.

This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To join the voluntary sector network, click here.

Volunteer placements in development: 10 ways to make them count

3 May, 2013 - 17:49

From managing expectations to setting up child protection policies and supporting local NGOs, our expert panel recommend how to get the best out of volunteer programmes

Katie Turner, global research and advocacy advisor, volunteering for development, Voluntary Service Overseas (VSO), London, UK

Learning should be reciprocal between volunteers and the communities they work in: Volunteers must develop a strong knowledge of the context within which they are placed. Some of this learning can be supported by the volunteer organisation through language training and briefing on the in-country context before the volunteer starts their placement. However, the onus also has to be on the volunteer to think about their placement in its broader context.

As development evolves, so should volunteering: If volunteering in development is truly driven by the needs and proposed solutions of communities then we should be constantly coming up with innovative and effective solutions to meet these needs. Along with the broader development agenda, volunteerism must continue to evolve and innovate in order to bring about sustainable change.

Katherine Tubb, founder, 2Way Development, London, UK

The length of the programme is a good indicator of who benefits: Highly skilled volunteers can have a positive impact on communities in about three months, but six months is seen as a good average placement length, where volunteers can actually add value to the work of an NGO. Any less and I would argue that the benefits are more on the side of the volunteer.

Resources:
Ethical tourism group, Tourism Concern, has been working on an international volunteering standards group code of best practice for some years. This is a useful resource for those setting up volunteering initiatives.

Hayford Siaw, executive director, Volunteer Partnerships for West Africa (VPWA), Accra, Ghana

Support volunteering in local NGOs: It is worrying to see foreign volunteer organisations mobilising people to go to Africa for placements with no structures in place to receive them. The best way to volunteer is to provide direct institutional support to grassroots NGOs that understand their community needs. They can be harder to find, as the biggest NGOs dominate on search engines such as Google, but websites such as the online volunteering portal are useful.

Simona Costanzo Sow, project manager, post-2015, United Nations volunteers programme, Bonn, Germany

Longer placements aren't necessarily better: Short term programmes can be very effective when they are part of a longer term local community effort, especially when engaging young people. The key is that the volunteers, hosts and sending organisations are clear about the objective of the programme. The volunteer should be there to share something with his or her peers in the country, not to teach anything. Bringing a different perspective and developing new solutions along with local youth can be very inspiring.

Ben Wilson, project assistant, Challenges Worldwide, Edinburgh, UK

Don't be patronising in your messaging: The way volunteer groups communicate their ideals through social media and events like Comic Relief can be patronising and harmful to communities in the south. Having met with school groups who have 'partnerships' with schools in developing countries, I've found that most of the children only know the global south through the dominant media expositions of it. The regulation of developing country imagery is essential to dispel misinformation.

Resources:
Some useful resources and best practice guides for volunteer sending organisations are available from development networks Comhlamh and Nidos.

Adam McGuigan, co-founder and artistic director, Barefeet, Lusaka, Zambia

Be targeted: Designing well thought out placements that match community needs with appropriate volunteer skills is not rocket science, but many agencies rush this process and get it wrong. Accounting for International Development (AfiD) is a good example of an organisation that provides targeted, effective and sustainable short-term volunteer programmes.

Nichole Georgeou, lecturer, international development studies, Australian Catholic University, Sydney, Australia

True partnerships are difficult to form: When western volunteers arrive into developing country contexts, they enter into existing hierarchies that they usually do not recognise or understand. These hierarchies have been shaped by histories of colonialism and development. In this context, true partnership is difficult to achieve as asymmetries of power are present in the relationship from the start.

Liz Wilson, director, Supporting Kids In Poverty (Skip), Trujillo, Peru

Child protection is crucial: Any organisation working with children must give consideration to child protection. I attended an NGO conference last year and was surprised to find that none of the grassroots organisations had a child protection policy. Many did not do background checks on their volunteers, and had no child protection procedure. To me these things are absolutely fundamental if you are going to work with children.

Resource:
Tearfund has published a basic step-by-step guide to writing a child protection policy for international NGOs.

Apeksha Sumaria, head of programmes, Accounting for International Development (AfID), London, UK

Manage expectations: It's very important to ensure that volunteer aspirations (about what they are able to achieve) are the same as partner expectations (about what volunteers are able to help them with). Then come the practicalities: ensuring that the volunteer is experienced enough to support the partner, that there is a partner and staff for the volunteer to work with and that the project objectives are clearly set out.

Anna Scott
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

Expert advice: crowdfunding

3 May, 2013 - 15:38

Expert advice from our recent live discussion on crowdfunding

Phil Geraghty, Peoplefundit

Crowdfunding is a great alternative to high street fundraising. It offers a great opportunity for charities to re-connect with the people that support them. It can particularly work if charities offer a new level of transparency to supporters through it, showing where money is going.

Warm supporters are essential: We work with campaigns for a 30 - 60 day warm-up period, before they launch their crowdfunding campaign.

Work out how many supporters you might get: Start small and pick a project which is easy for everyone to understand. We have an average pledge of £40 on projects, so a £4000 project will require 100 people to pledge. It will always vary, but that is a good place to start.

The crowd can be more important than the funding: If you can start to leverage the time, skills and marketing power of the crowd, then you actually have less need for money. Money is the catalyst that makes today's society move, but in tomorrow's world I hope there is a lot more emphasis placed on time and skills.

Danae Ringelmann, Indiegogo

Give the job to an intern: Crowdfunding campaigns are great jobs for college interns, they know social media like the back of their hand.

Videos and perks really work: Campaigns with a video raise 114% more on average. And, 92% of all campaigns that reach their funding target offer perks. Check out our Insights for more data on what drives success. See our guide to campaign basics, here.

There are five main reasons why people get involved: We call these the five Ps and they don't just apply to crowdfunding. They're Passion; Participation – because while they are busy and might not be able to devote their jobs to what they care about, this is a way to do something good; Perks – particularly for artistic and product campaigns; Pride – people like to feel they've been part of discovering something new; and, Profit (only available on equity crowdfunding platforms).

Maintain engagement: Have discussions online, use updates to poll funders and get their input and ideas on efforts.

Bret Conkin, FundRazr

This could really be the future for charities: The charity sector that adopts this method in their mix will find it a powerful and empowering method to overcome donor fatigue, marshall evangelists and create deep connection.

Set a realistic goal: Under £10k is a good first ask.

Be creative with media: Feature the beneficiaries (not the charity) in an inspirational way - images, video and story-telling. Gamification is proving effective. Operation Sharecraft 2012 was a video game challenge for Save the Children in response to the Kony 2012 backlash. Through it, we were able to engage a whole new class of donor. DC Entertainment matched every $ raised and more than $1m came in 84 days.

You don't need to offer big rewards: We've seen an amazing response to charity campaigns without the requirement for physical rewards. Virtual rewards like shout-outs on social media often work well. Make it fun.

Share widely: Across charity and personal campaigns, successful campaign teams recently reported that 27% of donations came from "people they didn't know". This in turn can increase the friend base. We find that at 40% of a goal, entirely new supporters get engaged as momentum has been created. FundRazr gets 300% more visibility for your campaign on social networks than just using the Facebook share feature.

Learn from others and existing resources: Research other successful charity campaigns and look for a model that worked.

Enjoy yourself along the way: Be creative, innovate and enjoy the process. Your supporters will notice. Show some personality and laugh.

Jonathan Waddingham, JustGiving

Campaign time pressures do focus the mind: The fact that it's often all or nothing within a given period of time for crowd-funding, drives people to really push their campaign and filters out the people who aren't sufficiently engaged to make an effort.

Activism campaigns can be crowdfunded: It's easier conceptually to think about crowdfunding a new roof for a school. Having said that, I remember the time Amnesty crowdfunded an advert in a newspaper against Shell.

Facebook is often essential: On JustGiving, the biggest source of traffic is from Facebook, so we do a lot of work on making sure our Facebook integration is top class.

Charlotte Beckett, The Good Agency

Consider whether to offer a 'perk' or an investment: Nesta identifies four distinct crowdfunding models in its Crowding In report. These are donation-based, reward-based, lending-based and equity-based. I believe the first one is where we should positioning ourselves as a sector.

There are a number of practical considerations: Do you set up your own platform or use a white label version of one of the existing platforms, or post it straight onto one of the commercial sites? How do you allocate the funds raised (can you restrict them?). What appetite is there for risk and failure internally? (The vast majority of crowdfunding projects don't hit target). How motivated is your current supporter base for this type of fundraising? Would crowdfunding decrease income from other sources (so same donors, different platform)?

Crowdfunding could well be a big way to bring in money: NESTA estimates that within three to five years, crowdfunding could provide around £15 billion of finance a year in the UK, of which £4.7 billion could be the charity sector's share.

Ayan Mitra, CrowdBnk

It's an opportunity to reach new supporters: One of the benefits for charities is the ability to reach out to new supporters who you wouldn't necessarily talk to and who are drawn into the project aspect in the first instance and subsequently become supporters of the charity.

Traditional donor behaviour could get impacted: When you're giving rewards to crowdfunders, the messaging of the raise in relation to your loyal donor base needs to be managed carefully.

Make sure you do enough planning: Some don't plan enough or actively mobilise their social networks, and then fail. Sometimes they leave it to one person emailing a database when the whole team needs to get involved. It's hard work, but all fundraising is.

Plug in to your existing supporters: At least 40% of crowdfunding money comes from these immediate networks, before those distant from the project donate.

AmySCameron, 10:10 Solar Schools project

Make the most of your friends: Close friends can act as ambassadors, taking ownership of the cause and spreading it on your behalf, they then reach out in to their networks,

Have a strategy for keeping new supporters: Don't miss a chance to bring all those enthused new people along with you and your project longterm. Map out an ideal journey you'd like to take them on, what else they could contribute, what else you're up to that they could get involved in, etc.

Communication is so important: If you want people to stay on board, they have to feel this is as much their project, and their success, as yours, and that only happens if you involve them in the whole journey.

Crowdfunding is great for smaller charities: Some smaller community charities have high social capital and often have a large volunteer base which can be mobilised. Smaller targets can have a huge impact on their delivery.

Make sure your campaign looks immediately popular: Campaigns should launch with at least 20% pledged immediately before wider publicity. If people visit your landing page and no-one has donated then they will be wary.

This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To join the voluntary sector network, click here.

Claudia Cahalane
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

Live discussion: sharing best practice

3 May, 2013 - 14:08

Join us from 1-3pm on Wednesday 15 May to find out how to learn from your peers

In the current economic climate, every charity has to do more with less, and with training budgets either flat or declining in many organisations, the onus is on charity professionals to find new ways to do things better.

Whether it's using online forums and networks, organising and attending real-life events like nfpTweetUps, barcamp non-profits and Charity Hack days, charity professionals are increasingly finding new ways to share best practice.

In this latest Q&A, we'll discuss which approaches are most useful for charity professionals to learn about new techniques and solutions to the problems their charity faces.

We'll look at:

• The different ways to share best practice

• How to make the most of online resources

• The best events, groups and networks to join

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
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

The big social questions philanthropy must answer

3 May, 2013 - 12:00

We must consider whether philanthropy contributes to social cohesion and inclusiveness

This year's annual homage to the UK's wealthy, the Sunday Times Giving List, reported they gave away a '£2 billion fortune to good causes' in 2012 - a new high. HMRC estimates tax reliefs for charities at £3 billion this year, and for charitable gifts at £1.1 billion. Both have been growing for two decades.

Philanthropy on this scale is a formidable force for social good, increasingly encouraged by government as a route to collective benefits. But is it also transformative? Can the vision of a more just and empowered society be achieved through individual concerns and acts of generosity? If philanthropy is to achieve such social promise, it has some big questions to address. It means we need to ask not only how much we give, but how our philanthropic activities measure up to the social challenges of a time of austerity and growing globalisation.

One of the biggest questions philanthopy faces is its relationship to democratic society. The spending decisions of wealthy donors and their charitable foundations are private, and non-accountable beyond self-chosen boards. People can get rid of governments whose spending plans they dislike, but can do little about multi-million pound charitable largesse.

There are two ways of looking at the democratic implications of this. Is citizen power reduced by the privileges of wealthy donors? Or is it increased because the state leaves discretionary resources in the hands of the most successful and entrepreneurial? The current struggle over arts and culture funding provides a case in point. Culture secretary Maria Miller has recently made it clear that the government will be reducing support in an area whose national value few seriously doubt, while also increasingly enabling private donors to step in.

Another big question is whether philanthropy contributes to social cohesion and inclusiveness. Recent research by the Centre for Charitable Giving Philanthropy, supported by Trust for London, shows how the UK overlooks the generosity of migrants and minorities who not only send money to needy communities overseas, but are also more likely to support the UK's good causes.

This often comes at considerable personal sacrifice, receiving few of the tax or other benefits which accrue to UK donors. On the other hand, important and innovative initiatives in community integration and rights depend on charitable funders, such as Barrow Cadbury's Trust's ongoing support for the fair treatment of migrants and asylum-seekers and its work with the Canadian Maytree Foundation in promoting integration globally in cities of migration. Organisations like Liberty, funded by charitable trusts, are crucial to championing the rights of migrants. Commentators like the US Mark Rosenman, of Caring to Change, argue that social justice and inclusion should be integral to all philanthropic effort, which should not confine its responsibilities to individual causes. So how strong is the role of philanthropy in promoting inclusion?

Philanthropy needs to be aware of its impact on and role in the 'localism' agenda. The government's Community First Endowment Match Challenge, for example, is a £50 million matched fund available for donors giving locally, managed by the Community Development Foundation with local community foundations. The challenge for community foundations is to represent local communities while increasingly providing private donor services. Can such philanthropy further strengthen local voices or will it ultimately marginalise them? CGAP is exploring some of the tensions and responses, alongside Susan Phillips, an expert on community leadership models in the Canadian context.

Corporate philanthropy increasingly aims to align philanthropic with core business interests. This can lead to innovative initiatives which draw on business expertise and skills as well as cash, like BT's Better Futures programme to extend IT access, or EDF Energy's fuel debt advice service. Fast food company sponsorship of the London Olympics, however, raised controversy, as when Susan G. Komen for the Cure, which runs the world's largest breast cancer fundraising event, the US Race for the Cure, teamed with Kentucky Fried Chicken.

The Lance Armstrong doping scandal drew attention to the donations his Livestrong foundation received from companies with whom he had endorsement deals. (New York Times, January, 2013). With increasingly intertwining business and charitable interests, what are the balances being achieved between beneficiary, corporate and charity interests?

This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To join the voluntary sector network, click here.

The complexity of defining community

3 May, 2013 - 07:00

A desire to be part of a community is returning, but community identity is difficult to pin down

The charity sector often talks about community, be it community action, community engagement or local communities. But when it comes to defining the concept of community, things start to get trickier.

A book published in 2007 by the organisation Community Links illustrates this problem. Contributors including the then prime minister Gordon Brown, the current prime minister David Cameron, prize-winning teacher Philip Beadle and community activist Stafford Scott outlined their vision of community.

Each listed the communities they belonged to. The diverse associations listed by contributors included parents, the black community, Kirkcaldy, cyclists, Conservative party leaders, Spurs fans, long-distance runners, school governors, brass-players and Thomas the Tank Engine fans.

Traditionally, community was the place you lived. But in modern Britain the concept appears to have become more complex. Geraldine Blake, chief executive of Community Links, defines her community as "a group of people that I share values, activities, hopes and dreams with".

Blake remembers growing up in a "dead-end street" with a very clear sense of boundaries. She says that it felt like you were going into a different community when you crossed the street.

Since her childhood, she has seen how the concept of community has become more complex. "We all mean something quite different by it," she says. "A top down definition would not be terribly helpful."

Debbie Ladds, chief executive of the Local Trust, an organisation which oversees resident-led community regeneration programme, the Big Local, says that every individual has a different definition of their community. "We have got 150 communities, but everyone seems to define it in a different way," she says. "Some are estates, others are estates put together, or wards, and in rural areas we have hamlets or collections of hamlets."

"They are traditionally defined as a place, but they can be a community of interest," she adds. "You can live side-by-side and feel part of completely different communities."

Sometimes a too narrow definition of community can have negative consequences. Lisa Bryant, an employee of Lloyds Bank who has been seconded to the organisation Business in the Community to work with the community in Bristol, identifies the M32 motorway as a perceived and physical barrier for those who live around it.

"I had absolutely no understanding of gang culture and the different tensions that exist between different groups before coming here," she explains. "The side of the M32 that you live dictates which gang you are in. Some people have a very limited view of community. In the older generation too, there's that whole prospect of leaving your neighbourhood if you have to cross the M32."

One reason for the complexity of defining community is that an alternative meaning is of a collection of people with something in common. Atiha Chaudry, chair of Manchester BME network, has seen how people can belong to many different communities, whether based on geography, ethnicity, religion, interest or other social factors such disability or refugee status.

"People are networked into different groups," she says. "If you sit and map an individual and compare five or six individuals you would find that each one has lots of different connections.

"I think these multiple communities can strengthen and add value to communities, for example I am a Muslim and I also feel part of the local community. It can be difficult to engage people but it helps if you have activities going on locally."

Businesses too have their own definition of communities. Paul Buchanan, national community director at Business in the Community, says that Sainsbury's defines its community as where they live, work and trade.

"It's absolutely critical for businesses to define their community. You need to understand who your stakeholders are. If you think about the banks and the role in the community they had. They don't have the same local standing anymore. Banks have now realised that they need to get that back. One of the challenges for businesses is to get local again."

Big Local communities can be very easily defined with a map, says Debbie Ladds, and each initiative must benefit those who live within its boundaries. Perhaps as an acknowledgement of the complexities of setting a community boundary, she adds that the trust allows these projects to benefit people outside the area as well.

Another issue is that communities are not a static entity. Both Chaudry and Blake observe that they belong to different communities over time, when their changing roles as parents and carers meant they wanted new things from their community.

Communities themselves can also change, which poses a challenge to service providers. Community Links runs a network of community centres focused on the London borough of Newham. Geraldine Blake says her organisation serves many different communities in an area with a very transient population– their response has been to make sure their organisation is similarly fleet-footed.

"We very rarely provide services targeted at just one community," says Blake. "Any targeting is always temporary. For example, a few years ago we ran an Afghan football team, now we run a project to encourage cancer screening take-up in older Asian women."

While community identity is hard to pin down, there is a sense from all five individuals that a desire from the public to be part of a community is returning. For Blake, community is a "fluid, chaotic thing" but she says that defining the concept is not pressing. "It's the doing something together that is important."

This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To join the voluntary sector network, click here.

Rosie Niven
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

Mary Joynson obituary

2 May, 2013 - 13:49

Forthright and determined childcare worker who brought stability and purpose to the Barnardo's charity

Mary Joynson, who has died at the age of 88, was a pivotal figure in the modern development of the children's charity Barnardo's, Britain's largest, which she headed from 1973 to 1984. Many of the changes needed to ensure the organisation's survival were already planned when she took over, but it fell to her to implement them. She proved to be a great healer in an organisation then riven with division and suffering from low morale.

Joynson had joined Barnardo's in 1970, serving her first year as divisional children's officer in the north west, followed by three years as deputy director of childcare at the charity's headquarters. Working closely with Gillian Wagner, who had joined the governing council in 1969 and became its first female chair, she managed to give Barnardo's stability and a new sense of purpose. Her immediate predecessor, an outsider, had stayed only 15 months – and his appointment had prompted the resignations of several senior staff.

Mary's decisiveness, determination and forthrightness could be intimidating for some. Yet she was capable of great personal kindness and empathy. She had a rapier-like wit but could also be self-mockingly humorous.

When she took over – as senior director and director of childcare, to indicate that she was first among equals – Barnardo's was still very much influenced by its founder's Protestant evangelical ethos. This meant, for example, that it was not easy for non-Protestants (let alone non-Christians) to be promoted. Her own Methodist background allowed her to understand this without being a part of it and subtly to use her own faith with the council "old guard" to effect change.

Joynson was born in Bingham, Nottinghamshire, the youngest of three children of a Methodist minister and his wife, a teacher. When Mary was two and her older brothers also under six, their father died. At about the same time, Mary contracted polio, causing lifelong limits on her physical activity. Her mother then moved with the children to Tivetshall, Norfolk, to be near family.

Mary attended Trinity Hall boarding school, Southport, which she loathed, but won a gold medal from the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art, which built her self-confidence and helped with her later public speaking.

She attended the London School of Economics (1943-45) and gained the certificate in social sciences, and then spent next four years as a welfare officer with Norfolk education department. However, in 1948, when the Curtis committee transformed children's services, she joined Devon's newly created children's department as a senior childcare officer. She left in 1962 to become assistant children's officer in Somerset and also returned to the LSE, where she gained a certificate in mental health.

Once at Barnardo's she worked to see that good practice was not lost by reforming zeal. She continued the policy of moving away from residential care and started work with under-fives, laying the ground for the charity's strong emphasis on work with communities and families. She also pioneered ways of recruiting foster and adoptive parents and the placement of children that have now become commonplace.

Her great emphasis on training meant employing qualified and experienced staff. "'Professionalism' was a dirty word in Barnardo's when I came, so I used it as often as possible," she said.

The group she gathered around her – among them Roger Singleton, her deputy in 1974, who succeeded her – ensured not only that Barnardo's survived, but that it did so in its present form.

Joynson was at one time president of the Association of Children's Officers and was appointed OBE in 1980. She is survived by her brother and a nephew.

• Mary Grace Joynson, director of childcare, born 5 December 1924; died 13 April 2013

Terry Philpot
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

Good charities spend more on admin but it is not money wasted

2 May, 2013 - 07:00

The popular idea that charities fritter money on unnecessary admin has been proven wrong. You must spend to be effective

Donors should not favour charities that have low administration costs as they are likely to be low performers, new evidence has suggested.

The research, conducted by Giving Evidence and Givewell, is the first empirical data to be published about what administration costs indicate about charities' performance.

It compared 265 charities from 2008 to 2011 and found that in 2011 recommended charities spent an average of 11.5% of their costs on administration. However charities that Givewell didn't feel confident to recommend spent less on their overheads, with an average of only 10.8% of their costs going towards administration.

A similar result was recorded in 2008 to 2009, as lower-performing charities spent 9.5% on overheads and higher performing charities spent 10.2%.

The cost of a charities' overheads were determined by a number of factors, including records produced by the Charity Commission and Charity Navigator, and from the charities' own filing. Charities were recommended based on an indepth analysis that took into account a number of factors, including a strong documented track record of impact, highly cost-effective activities and a concrete need for more funds.

Caroline Fiennes, director of Giving Evidence and author of 'It ain't what you give, it's the way that you give it', said:

"If we look at what is included in the admin figure, such as systems to record learning and to improve and reduce costs, we can understand the findings. Spending on those things enables good performance. Scrimping on them is often a false economy.

"Assessing a charity by its admin spend is like assessing a teacher on how much chalk they use, or assessing a doctor on how many drugs they prescribe. They're easy measures, but they don't relate to performance.

"This isn't to say that there isn't waste in charities. There is – masses, much of it avoidable, and good charities try to avoid it. But don't expect to find it clearly labelled in the financial statements."

The research comes as the Parliament's public accounts committee has considered limiting charities' admin costs. It also comes after philanthropists such as Gina Miller have suggested that admin costs need to be capped. The data suggests that such caps would nudge donors towards choosing weaker charities, at untold cost to their beneficiaries.

Susan Hitch, a trustee of various organisations including the Sigrid Rausing Foundation has said: 'I'm often worried if a charity claims very low admin costs. Either they're fudging it to try to please a funder, which doesn't promise much of a relationship, or their admin really is rock bottom, in which case they're unlikely to be well run. You can't run an effective organisation with barely any cost. Grants are usually more effective if the charity is spending a realistic amount on its core costs.'

Research pays off for primary pupils

Chance UK provides mentors for primary schoolchildren who are at risk of developing anti-social behaviour and possibly being permanently excluded from school. The charity spent some money evaluating its work and found that male mentors were best suited to children with behavioural difficulties, whereas children with emotional problems responded better to female mentors. The money spent on such an evaluation would normally count as admin, but for the children whose support has improved because of this insight, it was money well spent.

This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To join the voluntary sector network, click here.

Not-for-profits need to steal a march in the boardroom battle

1 May, 2013 - 10:31

An increasingly squeezed financial climate means not-for-profit organisations need to be smarter about who they recruit to board and senior management roles. Liza Ramrayka hears how to target the top talent

As the UK's not-for-profit (NFP) sector continues to feel the squeeze of public sector funding cuts and competition for donations, it is increasingly important for organisations to recruit and retain the best people at board and senior management level to help them to address their current and future needs.

In recent years, a variety of challenges and opportunities have been thrown at the NFP sector, from public service delivery to mergers and the need to diversify income. But attracting and keeping talented trustees, non-executive directors (Neds) and senior managers is a constant test. Some organisations need to tap into different skills and experience to create the right mix of talent to oversee new areas of work. Others may need to attract representatives from stakeholder groups, such as beneficiaries or local government.

Board diversity remains a particular challenge. Charity Commission research shows that only 0.5% of charity trustees are 18-24 years old, despite this age group making up 12% of the UK population. The average age of a charity trustee is 57 and nearly half of all trustees are over 60. Just less than a third (31%) of charity board positions are held by women, but fewer than 20 chairs of the top 100 charities are women.

Winning the battle for board and senior management talent was the theme of a recent seminar organised by NFP Interchange, a forum for not-for-profit Neds convened by Grant Thornton in partnership with the Guardian. The event brought together not-for-profit Neds and specialists from across the voluntary, housing and higher education sectors.

The seminar was chaired by Carol Rudge, global head of Grant Thornton's not-for-profit team, and opened with presentations on current recruitment and retention challenges, and ideas for attracting top talent.

Being clear about whom you want to recruit and why was a recurring theme of the seminar. Panellist Baroness Barbara Young, chief executive of Diabetes UK, posed the question: "Are you looking for challenge or for support?", adding that NFPs need to demonstrate "a real honesty" about their board's existing skills and abilities – and what might be needed in future to tackle challenges such as change in the NHS.

Board audit

Panellist Philip Nelson, executive search consultant at NFP recruitment consultancy Prospectus, agreed. "You have to have a really strong vision and picture of what your existing talent looks like, and look at new and previously untapped stakeholders," he told delegates. Nelson said a board audit can help an organisation pinpoint its strengths and weaknesses.

It is vital for the NFP sector to emphasise its attributes if it is to attract top talent, delegates heard. Nelson echoed Baroness Young in stressing the need for organisations to sell the "employer brand" and to demonstrate that their charity is a good place to work and that it continues to deliver high-quality work. Sitting on a charity board is "a good way of expanding your horizons", he said, but the right candidates might not necessarily be attracted because of a lack of knowledge about what exactly trusteeship involves. It is also important to have an appreciation of the "nuances" in recruitment practice when recruiting for a chair, trustee or senior manager. Chair Carol Rudge pointed out that having quotas was not a solution.

Panellist Cary Cooper, distinguished professor of organisational psychology and health at Lancaster University Management School, wondered why the sector was not tapping into potential talent at an earlier stage. "I don't see the NFP sector at [graduate] recruitment fairs. It is a great opportunity to go after really good undergraduate management students who want to do meaningful jobs. It's too late to start at senior management level."

Getting the board composition right is another challenge, panellists agreed. Baroness Young said recruiting "luminaries" who are crowd pullers is all very well, but they "probably won't roll up their sleeves" and help the board with its work.

Sacha Romanovitch, responsible for people and culture on Grant Thornton's national leadership board, suggested that organisations should, through their recruitment, create an agile board environment that is attractive and enables people to make their best contribution. Combine this with people who have a passion for the vision of the organisation that comes from their heart and you set yourself up to have a really high-performing senior team.

Delegate Enid Rowlands, chair of Victim Support, said that service delivery was moving charities into "new territory" which had a big impact on who they have on their boards. "Charities are in competition for service delivery contracts. You have to look at who you need who you don't currently have."

Richard Barber, a trustee at HFT, reminded delegates that more should be done to attract young people to boards: "Young trustees find it difficult to step up to the plate, but employees see it as a benefit."

Baroness Young told delegates that her charity, Diabetes UK, had set up a young leaders group to target younger voices. The network of ambassadors aged 16–30, who have diabetes, meet in person, and via email and social media during the year to clarify gaps in services and suggest ideas.

But some delegates were concerned that diversity on the board should be more than a token gesture. Carl Allen, a trustee at the National Black Workers Group said many black people on boards were "over achievers" and some may not share the same perspectives as other black people. All board members need to "think" diversity.

Supporting board members and senior managers to reach their potential is a key challenge for the sector, delegates heard. Panellist Bjorn Howard, group chief executive of housing group Aster, believes organisations don't spend enough time thinking about the "emotional intelligence" of board members: "One of our biggest governance challenges is to nurture the needs of different parts of the group. If people can't work cohesively and constructively, they might have the best CVs in the world, but it isn't going to work."

Prof Cooper said organisations need to assess whether board members are providing the required "added value" and look at whether the nature of the role has changed. Nelson highlighted the need for organisations to conduct board appraisals. He agreed that retaining talent helps to attract talent, but added that it was important to "refresh" the organisation: "Loss of talent can be reinvigorating… it should be seen as a positive step."

So how can organisations hold on to talented individuals once they've snared them? For Cooper, retention relies on having a career-development strategy and effective succession planning so people feel they have a future with the organisation. More effort should be spent on team building, he suggested: "We don't spend enough time creating an organisation in which people want to stay." Making sure board members really understand what their charity does – that they talk to people "on the shop floor" – and are acclimatised to their role are also vital actions.

For Nelson, retention comes down to having "a compelling narrative" where people know how they fit into the team and why they are important. "Most [job] candidates come to me because they feel they are not making a significant contribution to the charity they are working for," he said.

Cooper said the NFP sector was well placed to attract people who are looking for positions that support wellbeing, flexible working and autonomy. But Baroness Young warned against losing the "human contact" provided by office life.

Romanovitch told delegates that a "paradigm shift" around working practices could lead to organisations attracting different types of talent: "Organisations that look at things differently will steal a march in the talent battle." Tony Crook, chair of Shelter, and on the board of other not for profits, said that some of these boards were using meetings via telecon to deal with fiduciary and routine matters, enabling the board to focus on strategic matters when they met around the table.

Discussions also touched on recruiting the chair and how to avoid having the same one in place for too long. Alice Maynard, chair of Scope, told delegates about her involvement in a new association that offers peer support and information to charity chairs. Panellist Nelson suggested charities put into place an appointments committee that can help to identify new talent and enable a "smooth transition" when roles do arise.

Summing up, David Mills, editor of the Guardian's voluntary sector network, reminded delegates that the NFP sector was facing "tough times" and that organisations were in control of recruiting the senior talent needed to see them through. For Howard, getting the senior talent right is critical: "We, as a sector, are not very good at sacking people. But if we expect the organisation to be high-performing, the board needs to be high-performing."

On the panel

Carol Rudge (chair), partner and head of not for profit group, Grant Thornton

Baroness Barbara Young, chief executive, Diabetes UK

Philip Nelson, executive search consultant, Prospectus

Bjorn Howard, group chief , executive,, Aster Group

Cary Cooper CBE, distinguished professor of organisational psychology and health, Lancaster University

David Mills, editor, Guardian Voluntary Sector Network

Sacha Romanovitch, partner, National Leadership, Grant Thornton

Forum report commissioned by Seven Plus and controlled by the Guardian. Discussion hosted to a brief agreed with Grant Thornton. Funded by Grant Thornton. Contact Rachel Joy on 020-3353 3999 (rachel.joy@guardian.co.uk). For information on roundtables visit: guardian.co.uk/sponsored-content

Austerity: boom times for the soup kitchen food supplier

1 May, 2013 - 08:00

The growth of FareShare, which distributes low cost food to charities serving vulnerable people, tells us the UK's voluntary welfare safety net is under huge strain

From soup kitchens to OAP lunch clubs and domestic violence refuges, food social enterprise FareShare's customers are a useful barometer of the impact of austerity and cuts on Britain's most vulnerable communities.

This morning FareShare published its latest annual figures: they show not only that demand from charities and community groups for its low-cost, high-quality food supplies is booming (I wrote about this here), but that it is comprehensively outstripping supply.

According to FareShare chief executive Lindsay Boswell:

What this tells us is that more and more front line charities who are providing front line support to the most vulnerable people are turning to us as a financial coping mechanism because local authority grants, statutory funding and funds from other sources are hard to come by.

Over the past 12 months, FareShare has distributed 4,200 tonnes of surplus food "rescued" from supermarkets to local charities and community groups which provide meals to beneficiaries, up 16% on 2011-12. That haul (which otherwise would have ended up in landfill) contributed to an estimated 10 million charity meals, feeding 44,000 people a day (up from 36,500 the year before).

FareShare now supplies 910 charities and community groups (up by 26% on 2011-12). These organisations, a tiny fraction of the UK's voluntary welfare safety net, pay annual membership fees equivalent to roughly 10% of the value of the food they consume. Many more want to join up but FareShare simply cannot source enough food to supply them. Some of FareShare's 17 depots have waiting lists of 50-60 charities wanting to sign up.

Last Autumn it published an impact survey among its members which revealed that 42% were suffering from government cuts while 59% reported an increase in demand for food from their beneficiaries. Over two-thirds predicted that demand for meals would rise in future.

Back then I spoke to youth worker Amie Wheal, who provides a Friday evening meal for local children on the Preston road estate in Hull, Humberside, using food supplied by FareShare, for which it pays £250 a year. The charity she works for, Child Dynamix, also sends out food parcels to financially struggling local families. It had experienced a 70% increase in demand for the meals from families finding it hard to make ends meet.

I caught up with Amie again yesterday: she told me need among local families had probably increased, though the charity itself was full to capacity and could do no more, even with the help of the FareShare drop:

I think there's lots of demand out there but we are limited to amount of families we can work with because of staffing and capacity constraints. If we had more funding the chances are we would have new people here every night.

Boswell reckons that the food industry - supermarkets, manufacturers and distributors - could release much more surplus food. It handles just 0.1% of UK food waste; increase that to 1% and FareShare's member charities could feed, in theory, 400,000 people a day - although whether the member charities - like Child Dynamix - have the logistical capacity needed to provide that level of meals without extra funding is open to question.

Both Boswell and Wheal suspect that the impact of welfare reforms will increase demand, although they say it is too early to say for sure. FareShare and its members may have a role in helping to ameliorate some of the social damage of austerity measures but already the scale of the challenge is daunting.

As Boswell puts it:

If you look at the number of charities out there providing food we could expand 50 times over. The need is absolutely enormous

Highs and lows of my afternoon as a street fundraiser

1 May, 2013 - 07:00

Three hours standing with a collecting bucket at the top of an escalator in central London offers a lesson in attitudes to giving

It was cold and my feet hurt. I'd been rejected, for the umpteenth time, and politely told off by a station guard for rattling my bucket. "It annoys the staff," he explained. "Well, if you do it too much it does."

Then a dignified, middle-aged man with a beard trailing a large family behind him stepped from the throng that was flowing from the shopping centre and stopped, right in front of me. He looked me full in the eye as he dug inside his voluminous winter coat, pulled out his pocket book and proceeded to empty its contents into my bucket. My spirits soared.

Then he gathered his family around him – mother, teenage son and two younger daughters – and spoke to them for a while in a language I couldn't catch. Soon they were all rummaging among their clothing. The procedure took some time. Then the teenage son, beaming from ear to ear, came over to pour handfuls more cash into my bucket.

"Thank you," he said, then bounced off with a spring in his step to catch his departing family. For the first time that day, I felt great.

I was with my wife, Marie, and younger son, Charlie, standing at the top of the escalators in Bond Street station, just outside the barriers. It was Easter Sunday and, though a lot thinner than we'd anticipated, the crowds of shoppers were coming through in a constant flow. Marie and I each had a bucket, Charlie had two and we'd a three-hour stint to complete. We were collecting money for Syria's refugees and those displaced by civil war in the country: three million-plus and growing by the day.

The sea of faces rising from the escalators is daunting the first time you confront it. They come in surges, a mixed amorphous mass. The last thing they're expecting to greet them is three of us in a line, rattling buckets. Not all are pleased. Most are indifferent. Some are, well, extraordinary. If only we could have an announcement at the start of the escalator, saying, "Get your money ready!"

Bond Street station is the world in microcosm, a mini United Nations. Some people love givers and giving, so support us with looks. Others prefer to look away.

Three people come at me from different angles all at the same time. Briefly the bucket gets busy. I don't know who to thank first, so I thank the whole foyer, loudly.

Then there's a lull. Busyness comes and goes, but the shoppers are few and I fear it's not enough. We're doing badly. Someone tells us that most shops are closed. For a full 20 minutes everyone ignores us. Then Marie says: "I've got three tenners."

Children really enjoy giving. A man stood in front of me for several minutes digging in his pockets. Then, having found his Oyster travelcard, he left. Behind him a gaggle of Syrian women, hands ornate with henna designs, ask if they can take my photo, then give me a pile of cash. "Here's 10 pounds, says another woman, "Have a nice day and thank you very much for what you're doing."

A young boy, maybe eight or nine, asks me what I'm doing. "Why are they fighting?" he asks. "What's a refugee?" I try to explain but can't give him a decent justification. "It's just bad," I say. "People have to leave their homes and loved ones in the middle of the night."

A young man asks me the way to Buckingham Palace. I oblige, though he gives me nothing but a smile. Then another man asks me why I'm doing this.

Our time was up. We thanked London Transport's wonderful people, signed out, then headed off to find a pub, thirsty and a bit tearful. As we sauntered down Brook Street a passing gent hailed Charlie. "For Syria," he said, putting a fiver in Charlie's bucket.

For a minute I thought Charlie was going to say, "But we've finished for the day." He didn't. It's never too late to do something wonderful.

Ken Burnett is one of six independent trustees of the Disasters Emergency Committee.

This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To join the voluntary sector network, click here.

Letters: First they came for the working-age poor …

30 April, 2013 - 21:00

Not content with dismantling the social security system for the working-age needy, Iain Duncan Smith has now set his sights on pensioners (Report, 29 April). True to form, the softening-up process has begun with what might seem an innocuous call for "rich" pensioners to "give back" their benefits.

This is just the second phase of a planned assault on universality. Experience tells us that no more mealy-mouthed platitudes can disguise their intent. Given time, this coalition will undoubtedly introduce means-testing for pensions, phase out winter fuel payments, and eventually force pensioners to rely on private means to support themselves. The writing is on the wall.

However, while pensioners are the country's largest voting block, they must act now before this administration dismantles yet another cherished ideal. I would urge all concerned to write to your MP and give notice that any attempt to attack universal pensions will be answered at the next election.
Christopher Munro
Liverpool

• Do not be diverted by the coalition pantomime about welfare for well-off elderly people. Once Mr Duncan Smith's "aspiration" has taken root, the next step will be an expectation that the well-off elderly will not need the universal benefit provided by the NHS either. Health insurers will be waiting for them.

Remember Richard Titmuss's pronouncement, 45 years ago, that "services for the poor are poor services". No one dares say that well-off people (should) pay more tax, the basis of social cohesion.
Sebastian Kraemer
London

• The hue and cry over benefits for "rich pensioners" seems to come down to three things: TV licences for over-75s, the winter fuel payments (a gimmick which could just be incorporated into the pension), and free bus passes. The one which alarms me is free bus passes (and not because I have one which I use occasionally). This is a national scheme which replaced a lot of variable local schemes run and paid for by local councils.

Most councils could not afford to reinstate those if the national scheme were scrapped. If free bus passes were restricted to people getting pension credit (the obvious way to means-test them), the effect on a lot of local, suburban and rural bus services could be catastrophic. Much of the network might close down overnight.

Ministers, civil servants and journalists ought to look outside the London bubble at the wider consequences of what they are talking about so glibly.
Tony Greaves
Liberal Democrat, House of Lords

• Yet another snipe at bus passes for pensioners. Bus passes are not just another perk, but there is never any debate about the wider issues.

I have a bus pass, so has my husband. Like a lot of pensioners, we don't need this concession. Where we live it is more convenient to go just about anywhere by car than by bus, but we use the bus to be socially responsible. Personally it does not matter if I have to go without a bus pass. I will just go by car with the added bonus that I no longer feel guilty. I will not be going anywhere by dirty, uncomfortable, inconvenient (privatised) bus if I have to pay the exorbitant fares. This goes for many of us.

Often the only passengers on a bus are pensioners, so many services are likely to disappear along with the bus pass. The pensioner's bus pass has been a tremendous success and should be extended to everyone. This idea may be too radical for some, but justifiable, as society is arranged in such a way that people have to travel miles to work, at their own expense, for the convenience of their employers.

Imagine the benefits for the whole of society if bus travel was free for everyone. More passengers would lead to more and better services, which would lead to more passengers, fewer cars, less congestion, less smog, better health, fewer road repairs, more freedom for children (all of us) etc etc. It is possible that there would be an overall cost saving and perhaps a boost to the economy. At least let there be a debate and not this constant drip-drip of anti-bus-pass comments.
Karen Fletcher
North Anston, South Yorkshire

• Work and pensions secretary Ian Duncan Smith could be on to something with his suggestion that well-off pensioners should return their excess money to the state. And why restrict this generous idea to pensioners? Bankers' bonuses, Premiership footballers' ridiculous salaries and MPs' duck-house expenses would all come in very handy. We would have to think of a suitable name for the scheme though. How about "taxation"?
Jill Eckersley
London

• I do not need lectures from Iain Duncan Smith on what I should do with my £200 heating allowance. I worked out all by myself that I could manage without it. But why would I give it back to this government to spend on such things as Trident? It went where it would do far more good – helping those who were suffering from his pernicious welfare policies.
Margaret Jones
Holmfirth, West Yorkshire

• I am an 82-year-old retired occupational psychologist. I enjoy a comfortable occupational pension, on which I pay income tax. I could easily afford to hand back my universal perks, as Iain Duncan Smith suggests. Why should I, when IDS's government reduces the top rate of income tax on salaries and bonuses to which I could never have aspired, in the interest of what? Incentivisation? Performance? Need? Don't make me laugh. Greed and competitive self-esteem are nearer the mark in many cases, I guess. My answer is to give to charity, under gift aid, which paradoxically also deprives public service of much needed income, but at least benefits some needy organisations.
Jeremy Atkinson
Eaglescliffe, County Durham

Sheffield charity helps female prisoners feel confident on the outside

30 April, 2013 - 16:00

A charity in Sheffield is empowering female offenders to enable them to cope with life after prison

Prison for 62-year-old Molly came unexpectedly. Despite being convicted of theft, at court her solicitor assured her that she would not be going to jail. "She said to me, 'It's your first offence. Listen carefully when the sentence is passed, you'll be told it will be suspended.' It wasn't. I got 14 months. Afterwards my solicitor came to the cells before they took me away and said cheerily, 'It'll be OK – you'll be like a mother figure to the other women.' I didn't want to be a mother figure. I wanted to go home and try and repair my life."

Speaking to Molly in the nail-art class run by the women's charity, Key Changes: Unlocking Women's Potential, it's hard to imagine that she was ever capable of dishonesty. When she got to prison, she says she saw a doctor who explained that she had depression. "It's no excuse," she says, "but when I took the money, it was like somebody else was doing it. I was so ashamed. I still am."

Molly lost her home, her job and her social network. Her husband visited her once in prison. "He said he loved me and that he would stand by me. That was the last time I saw him," she says. As we chat, it emerges that her husband, whom she married when she was 49, had been abusive.

"We were together for 14 years. It was all right at first, then he started controlling me, controlling the purse strings. I couldn't do anything unless he said so. I daren't tell anyone. I felt trapped."

Molly's situation is far from unique. Of the just over 4,000 inmates in the 13 women's prisons in England and Wales, 81% were convicted of a non-violent offence. More than a quarter had no previous convictions and over half reported having previously experienced emotional, physical or sexual abuse – much of which had taken place in childhood.

Released after six months, Molly contacted Michelle Nicholson, founder and director of Key Changes, whom she had heard about in prison. "I needed some help to try and get my confidence back," she says. "Michelle and the other mentors have been brilliant. This is like a safe haven, where I don't feel stigmatised. I've only been out of prison a few months, but I'm beginning to look forward to the future again."

Nicholson founded Key Changes in October 2012 with a kickstart grant of £44,000 from the Monument Trust, a grant-making trust established by the Sainsbury family. The grant was just enough to provide her with a basic salary over two years and modest operational expenses. She was given the use of office space by the charity Together Women, which also provides the room for the nail-art class, and managed to secure another small grant from the Sheffield Church Burgesses Trust to cover the expenses of her volunteers. As well as nail art, Key Changes runs art classes and provides training for those who would like to become mentors. The charity also does educational presentations at conferences and in schools on women's issues in the criminal justice system.

Given that there are already a number of charities and agencies that to help women caught up in the criminal justice system, what is so different about Key Changes? "The big difference is that we are totally independent of the system," Nicholson says. "We provide one-to-one mentoring for women, mostly for those who are coming out of prison and who really need all the support they can get. We are not authority figures, doing reports or passing judgment. For us, it's about women empowering women so they can manage their issues with confidence and get back on with their lives."

Women can self-refer to Key Changes eight months before release from prison, or in the community if they feel they are at risk of offending. Leaflets are available in courts and police stations. The probation service and the youth justice service also encourage women to self-refer. "We provide help for up to 12 months, or more if it's needed. Some women just need a place to get a coffee and use a computer once a week, and that's fine with us," says Nicholson.

Nicholson's passion and commitment for her work is in the main driven by her own experience of prison. "Before I went in there I had this idea that women's prisons were full of hard nuts and tough characters. I was terrified. But it didn't take me long to see the truth that so many women in those places have been exploited, abused and often very badly hurt and let down, by families or in their relationships. So many in there had serious mental health problems. The number of women self-harming was unbelievable.

"I knew what it was like to be vulnerable. But I found some strength in prison that I didn't know I had. I coped. I educated myself to degree level and vowed that, when I got out, I would do all I could to help these women, who society doesn't seem to care too much about."

Improving esteem is a major component of Key Changes' work. While women comprise only 5% of the total prison population, female prisoners account for a third of all incidents of self-harm. All Key Changes staff receive self-harm-focused training from a forensic psychologist during induction and the plan is to involve the psychologist in the development of a self-harm support group.

So far, Nicholson's small team of volunteers, which includes several criminology students on placements from the University of Sheffield, has mentored 42 women, 12 of whom, including Molly, have gone on to train to become mentors themselves. There are 13 women in her weekly nail-art class. The demand for Key Changes' services has been so high that Nicholson is keen to expand. "At the moment we only cover Sheffield, Rotherham and Barnsley; we hope to cater for Doncaster shortly and when we consolidate our service we will think about running it in other areas of the country."

The biggest challenge is securing funding to provide salaried positions for her mentors. It's too early to measure long-term outcomes, but personal testimony indicates that Key Changes is having a significant effect on the lives of those it helps. Twenty-nine-year old Jan's experience is typical. She served six months and has yet to be reunited with her two children. Nicholson's team, she says, has given her hope. "They got me into a hostel for the homeless and helped me with a plan to pay off my rent arrears. I feel that if it wasn't for Key Changes I would have reoffended – they have been there for me to give me advice and support. They encourage me to stay strong."

SocietyGuardian.co.uk - voluntary sector

Letters: Lottery conditions

A lot of money in the voluntary sector is misspent, key speaker says

Charities must influence public service delivery processes

How to become a philanthropist

Short and snappy 'soundbites' could be the future for impact reporting

Five steps for moving the debate on charity overheads forward

Save the Children mothers' index: 10 worst countries in sub-Saharan Africa

Manage your board by building great relationships

Volunteer placements in development: 10 ways to make them count

Expert advice: crowdfunding

Live discussion: sharing best practice

The big social questions philanthropy must answer

The complexity of defining community

Mary Joynson obituary

Good charities spend more on admin but it is not money wasted

Not-for-profits need to steal a march in the boardroom battle

Austerity: boom times for the soup kitchen food supplier

Highs and lows of my afternoon as a street fundraiser

Letters: First they came for the working-age poor …

Sheffield charity helps female prisoners feel confident on the outside

Keep up to date

Advertisement

Latest jobs

Recent Comments

Share your content

Latest suppliers

Who's online

Latest advertorials

UK Fundraising Social Links

Your UK Fundraising