SocietyGuardian.co.uk - voluntary sector

Open data could be "as powerful a tool to the voluntary sector as to any", according to the Minister for Civil Society
• More data journalism and data visualisation from the Guardian
• More from the Data Store on big data

Government officials, charity leaders and senior figures from the open data movement said on Monday that the UK must foster an environment of collaboration and transparency in order to share best practices from the public and private sectors with nonprofit organisations.

"Part of the value of civil society is holding power to account, and if this can be underpinned by good quality data, we will have a very powerful tool indeed", said Nick Hurd, Minister for Civil Society.

"The UK is absolutely at the vanguard of the global open data movement, and NGOs have a great sense that this is something they want to play a part in.

"There is potential to help them do more of what they do, and to do it better, but they're going to need a lot of help in terms of information and access to events where they can exchange ideas and best practice."

Third sector has for too long been misread as third place when it comes to nonprofits. Data has been widely touted as the future of the public and private sectors but when it comes to the adoption of big data initiatives, it is difficult to find a sector more ripe for revolution.

The opportunities offered by wider use of data in the third sector are many, from allowing individual organisations to provide donors and funding bodies with more tangible evidence of their successes, to opening up previously inaccessible datasets that could revolutionise their operations.

Peter Wanless, CEO of the Big Lottery Fund (BLF), which distributes lottery money to community-run projects, has already seen how better use of data and increased openness can streamline the funding award process, allowing deserving charities to get the money they need as quickly as possible.

"We are a massively oversubscribed fund, we are operating in a much tighter funding environment, so evidence is absolutely essential if the BLF is to move beyond random acts of kindness and to convince ourselves - and others - that we're learning from what went before", said Wanless.

The BLF has at any time 20,000 awards under consideration, but the traditional funder-fundee model has weaknesses that open data could be used to combat.

"There is a conspiracy of honesty: the organisations which apply to the BLF and get the money are desperate to show they're successful, because they worry that if they're not successful we'll withdraw the grant", said Wanless.

"This has led to a shift towards sharing a sense of success rather than being able to open up, celebrate and understand failure, and acknowledge that as an important part of the learning process."

Solving the fear of failure problem is one of the main arguments for adopting an open data policy in any sector or industry, and the 'fail fast' approach has been used by big data businesses for decades.

The competitive marketplace and bilateral nature of funding awards make this issue perhaps even more significant in the charity sector, and it is in changing attitudes and encouraging this warts-and-all approach that movement leadership bodies such as the Open Data Institute (ODI) will play their biggest role.

"We're in a new era of open data where we need permission to fail, we need to try to open up the whole conversation to allow everybody to see what we're doing, to learn from our mistakes," said Gavin Starks, CEO of the ODI.

An altogether different opportunity offered by open data is the ability for charities to use data directly to improve the service they provide.

"We use data to capture the complexity of how we deliver palliative care and to improve this process," said Ian Carey, CEO of Barnsley Hospice.

"We can demonstrate as an organisation that we're providing an important service to the people of Barnsley. Are we achieving our mission? Are we delivering a good and dignified death? We can use data to answer those questions.

"But we also want to know how we compare to others and this is where we're really keen for other hospices to publish some of their data, so we've got a bit more of a benchmark. For all we know, we could be rubbish in Barnsley, because it's very difficult to compare ourselves with other hospices that don't publish their data", said Carey.

Joining the ODI in driving and overseeing wider adoption of these practices is the Open Knowledge Foundation (OKFN). One of its first projects was a partnership with an organisation called Publish What You Fund, the aim of which was to release data on the breakdown of funding to sectors and departments in Uganda according to source - government or aid.

Without knowing such relatively basic information, charities distributing foreign aid to Uganda could have been blindly providing money for an already well-funded industry, or unknowingly overlooking a sector in desperate need of additional cash.

"We found huge disparities: more than half of spending on government projects in Uganda was coming from non-government sources", said Rufus Pollock, co-founder and director of OKFN.

"Disaster management was [funded] entirely by donors, but health was much more mixed. This was something the government of Uganda didn't even have. Publish What You Fund took this to them and they actually discovered spending they didn't know about.

Open data can often take the form of complex databases that need to be interrogated by a data specialist, and many charities simply do not have these technical resources sitting untapped. OKFN is foremost among a number of organisations looking to bridge this gap by training members of the public in data mining and analysis techniques.

"We're all familiar with the phrase 'knowledge is power', and in this case knowledge means insight gained from this newly available data. But data doesn't turn into insight or knowledge magically. It takes people, it takes skills, it takes tools to become knowledge, data and change.

"We set up the School of Data in partnership with Peer 2 Peer University just over a year and a half ago with the aim of enabling citizens to carry out this process, and what we really want to do is empower charities to use data in the same way", said Pollock.

More data

More data journalism and data visualisations from the Guardian

World government data

• Search the world's government data with our gateway

Development and aid data

• Search the world's global development data with our gateway

Can you do something with this data?

• Flickr Please post your visualisations and mash-ups on our Flickr group
• Contact us at data@guardian.co.uk

• Get the A-Z of data
• More at the Datastore directory
• Follow us on Twitter
• Like us on Facebook

• Transparency
• Charities
• Voluntary sector
• Big data

John Burn-Murdoch
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

Companies merge to make more profit and public sector bodies are reorganised to provide better services – charities should do the same

There are 163,000 charities, according to the Charity Commission, and thousands more voluntary organisations are recognised as charitable but are unregistered. Should there be so many? Companies merge to make more profit, public sector bodies are reorganised to provide better services – maybe charities should do the same. It is prudent to do so now when the economy is in recession and deep cuts are being made to public expenditure.

Collaboration should always be on the agenda for charity leaders. Trustees must always ask whether a charity's objectives are best served by using resources themselves or passing them on to others who are better placed to help beneficiaries. If this question was objectively addressed by charity trustees I believe there would be many more collaborations and full mergers between charities.

There are 733 UK charities who help those with "sight loss". Some of these are large charities with turnover in excess of £50m each – and among some of these there have been high profile mergers in recent years. For example, the RNIB Group, which is an umbrella organisation for other sight loss charities. But even here other large national names maintain their independence and potentially confuse donors and complicate matters for beneficiaries.

There are some excellent examples of collaboration and full merger. Age UK is a great result from bringing together the complementary roles and perspectives of Age Concern and Help the Aged – and there are many smaller and local examples too. Largely driven by funding cuts, voluntary sector bodies around the country are benefitting from mergers, without a great cost in loss of local identity or focus. Unified voluntary sector services speak with much greater authority to larger tiers of local government.

At its Charity Centre in Buckinghamshire the Clare Foundation has more than 20 charity tenants, across a wide range of different interests. Some interesting collaborations have emerged due to working in the same building alongside one another. A specialist international charity based at the centre shared the London Marathon facilities of another tenant, that was much larger and had many more runners. Was there a conflict of interest or of fundraising? Definitely not.

There are other examples where charities in the centre are able to collaborate because they have clients in common. The Clare Foundation itself has recently merged with a local organisation that champions corporate social responsibility.

Charity collaboration and merger is not inevitable – but it is something that all charities should inevitably consider. Here are three questions to consider:

• Is there another organisation with similar or complementary objectives and/or beneficiaries that we should be talking to?

• Can we achieve economies and/or a better service by working together?

• Are we sufficiently bold (and committed to the best interests of our beneficiaries) that we are prepared to put aside our personal preferences and consider working with others?

If independent sustainability is an issue these questions will probably arise very quickly – the real trick is to get ahead of the game and think about mergers before a crisis hits.

David White is chief executive at The Clare Foundation.

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

• Voluntary sector network blog
• Voluntary sector
• Charities

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

Commercially aware individuals from diverse backgrounds can help charities improve their decision-making and innovation

The financial crisis has hit many charities hard, with a fall in public donations and far fewer government grants available. A quarterly poll of 256 charity leaders by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) between November and December 2012 revealed a lack of optimism that things will improve this year.

The survey found that 92 per cent of charity leaders think the economic conditions in the voluntary sector will be negative over the next 12 months and nearly half plan to cut spending in the next 12 months.

Smaller charities are often faring far worse than the bigger, more well-known brands, as people have far less money to donate and there are fewer grants on offer; and what money is available tends to find its way to charities with higher profiles that can still afford to market themselves.

So what can smaller charities do to ensure their survival this year? One key solution is improving the diversity of their trustee boards and ensuring that they have the best people governing the charity. It is a well known fact that charities need to operate more like businesses to survive. Recruiting professionals with commercial experience can really help to turn things around for all charities, small or large.

Despite the need to be more commercially aware and to have a board of trustees with diverse skills, many charities continue to recruit from the same networks as they have always done and this is one of the biggest problems facing charities today.

We know that diverse boards make better decisions. Organisations with boards that contain a broader range of skills, knowledge and experience should be better equipped to overcome challenges. However, research we conducted last November with our database of 1,800 trustees showed that half of trustees are still recruited by friends or acquaintances, showing that many organisations aren't casting their nets widely enough.

Our findings showed that one in five trustees said their charity board lacks a diverse range of skills and more than half (51%) said a more diverse board would enhance their charity's effectiveness. Nearly a third of trustees said diversity could be improved by recruiting more people from ethnic backgrounds or younger people (31%).

A recent report from ACEVO showed that seven out of 10 trustee chairs are white and 97% are men. The Charity Commission estimates that just 0.5% of trustees are aged 18-24 (compared with 12% of the population). All these findings point to a lack of diversity on UK charity boards today; young people, women and people from different ethnic minority groups in particular are under-represented.

It is widely acknowledged that charities have difficulties recruiting trustees: an estimated one in five charities has vacancies on its board. According to a report last year from Ecclesiastical, a charity insurance company, more than half of all charities struggle to recruit trustees.

One charity that has recently benefitted from recruiting outside its usual networks is Allergy UK, the leading charity dedicated to supporting about 21 million allergy sufferers. After a review of the skills the organisation needed to meet its strategic targets, the charity was able to focus on the expertise it was looking for to help the organisation raise its profile, develop the expansion of its trading arm and diversify its income stream.

To increase its income, the organisation wanted to develop its successful trading arm with its "seal of approval" endorsement, where products including vacuum cleaners, washing machines and bedding suppliers are tested in a laboratory by experts to check if the product meets the standards set by allergy specialists to assist asthma and allergy sufferers in the management of condition. However, the "seal of approval" trademark is registered globally: the charity wanted someone with the right global marketing expertise and business acumen on board to develop this business internationally. They approached us to find four new trustees, with three in place by October 2012 and the fourth joining the board in June.

The new trustees include a venture capitalist with skills in business strategic planning and commercial and financial expertise, a research scientist in France who will help the charity to establish some work with potential commercial partners there, and a businessman with a background in telecoms and technology. The charity now feels it has the right board in place to guide it financially, and to help diversify income streams and raise its profile.

Another charity that was looking to strengthen its board and bring in trustees with new skills to help the charity expand was Music of Life, which provides high quality musical education and performance opportunities for children and young people with disabilities and special needs.

The charity was looking for trustees with expertise in marketing and communications, finance and fundraising, along with experience of working in the fields of disability or education. It also wanted the new trustees to become ambassadors and to help the organisation to reach potential partners who could become new beneficiaries or supporters.

The charity chose to recruit via two avenues: through a law firm and through ourselves. Five new recruits were appointed between November and December last year and have already made an impact on the charity, helping set up working groups and participating in fundraising events. They all have specialist skills and have helped to create three subcommittees – monitoring and evaluation, communications and fundraising – and the organisation has already seen itself transformed with lots of new ideas to help it become more financially sustainable.

These are just some examples.

Beating Bowel Cancer has improved its governance through the recruitment of new trustees. It needed to strengthen its board and bring in trustees with different skills and more diverse experience – particularly in the areas of fundraising, general business and marketing and PR. It has recruited five trustees in the past 18 months.

These three examples highlight that smaller charities have a lot to gain from recruiting outside their usual networks, as they are able to find trustees who are much more commercially aware and able to meet the challenges facing the sector today.

Recruiting trustees with professional skills from more diverse backgrounds can lead to better decision-making, greater innovation and ensure organisations operate more effectively and competitively; and this really is the key for charities who want to survive into next year.

Ian Joseph is chief executive of Trustees Unlimited.

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

• Trustees
• Voluntary sector network blog
• Trustee profiles
• Voluntary sector
• Charities
• Communities

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

Shoppers urged to pay voluntary donation representing fairer factory wages towards ActionAid charity helping victims' families

A new campaign has been launched to raise money for the Bangladesh factory collapse victims by urging shoppers to pay a voluntary "T-shirt tax". The cash is going to the charity ActionAid which will distribute it to the families of victims killed in the disaster, as well as to workers who survived.

Victoria Butler-Cole, a 36-year-old barrister from Kent who came up with the idea, said: "It seems to me we have a moral duty to help. Everyone has something in their wardrobe from Bangladesh. This isn't just the fault of companies who supply cheap clothes."

Butler-Cole said shoppers should consider donating the difference between what they paid for a T-shirt – and what it would cost if it had been produced by workers treated property. For example, if a T-shirt produced in Bangladesh cost £3, a £3 donation would be fair, she said.

On Saturday demonstrators gathered outside cut-price retailer Primark's flagship store in Oxford Street. A petition has been launched calling for Primark and other brands, including Matalan and Mango, which used businesses based inside the Dhaka building, to compensate the families of workers killed or injured.

Butler-Cole acknowledged struggling families wouldn't be able to pay a T-shirt tax, and often relied on cut-price clothes. But she said others should consider it. The tax was better than a high-street boycott, which could lead to Bangladeshi workers losing their livelihoods, she added.

Butler-Cole's sister Imogen, who lived in Bangladesh, has launched a Facebook page and Twitter campaign with the hashtag #TShirtTax.

Currently ActionAid Bangladesh has 200 volunteers helping with the rescue operation and providing food, water and emergency equipment.

• Bangladesh
• Charities
• Voluntary sector
• Charitable giving
• Fashion industry
• Primark
• Retail industry

Luke Harding
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

Charity defends its right to criticise badger policy and live animal exports

The RSPCA, the world's oldest and largest animal welfare organisation, is at the centre of an increasingly bitter row over how it conducts its campaigns.

The Charity Commission has confirmed that it is assessing a complaint that the organisation's protests against live exports and badger culling have seen it stray too far into the realm of politics.

The commission polices strict rules governing the role and remit of charities. It can take action if it deems charities are abusing their position, including whether they are using it for political purposes. But its latest intervention has prompted fears that voluntary organisations will be deterred from speaking out on issues they feel strongly about.

In recent months the RSPCA has been vocal against the badger cull, expressing outrage "that the government have ignored public, parliamentary, EU commission and scientific opinion" and proclaiming its intention to "stop the slaughter". The charity gathered tens of thousands of signatures for a petition against the cull, which it said went against "overwhelming scientific, public and political opinion" and would completely wipe out badger populations in some areas.

It was also criticised for launching a private prosecution against the Heythrop hunt, whose past members include the prime minister, David Cameron. Two of the hunt's members pleaded guilty to unlawfully hunting a wild fox with dogs. Following complaints against the RSPCA after the case, the commission wrote to its chief executive, Gavin Grant, demanding that his charity's trustees review its prosecution policies "given the amount of adverse publicity and the allegations of political bias that the charity has attracted as a result of the case".

Further criticisms were levelled against the charity in March when it failed in a renewed attempt to challenge the legality of the export of live sheep through the port of Ramsgate in Kent. Now the commission has confirmed it is taking another look at the charity.

"Concerns have been raised with us about the charity's campaigning activities in relation to the badger cull and live animal exports," a spokeswoman for the commission confirmed. "We are currently assessing these concerns. As part of our assessment, we have written to the charity's trustees, asking how they ensure their campaigning activity legitimately meets the test of furthering their objects in accordance with our guidance, and that they have fully considered the impact on their charity's reputation. We will carefully consider their response in order to determine what, if any, regulatory action is required."

The RSPCA faced questions from the commission in 2006 over its "Back off Badgers" campaign. In a letter sent to the commission on Friday, Grant expressed surprise that its campaign against the cull was once again under scrutiny.

"Given that the RSPCA's policy of opposing the badger cull has been very thoroughly examined by the Charity Commission on at least two previous occasions and found to be 'clearly within the charity's purposes', it is surprising that the charity is now being asked to explain its opposition to the cull in relation to the charity's objects," Grant said.

He demanded to know the identity of the complainant and to be given a copy of all correspondence between the complainant and the commission.

Since Grant took over as chief executive, the RSPCA has found itself in the midst of a storm. Grant has come in for heavy criticism from shire Tories after suggesting that those hunting with the Heythrop are "no different from badger baiters – apart from their accents".

A judge criticised the charity's "staggering" £326,000 prosecution costs when it took the Heythrop Hunt to court – reportedly almost ten times the cost of the defence's legal bill. The judge asked whether the cash could be more "usefully employed".

The Conservative MP, Simon Hart, a former chief executive of the Countryside Alliance, has been vocal in his criticism of the charity following the Heythrop case, accusing it of pursuing an "aggressive political agenda". Others have accused Grant of seeking to turn the RSPCA into a militant organisation.

But Sir Stuart Etherington, chief executive of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, said charities had a right to speak out on issues that concerned them.

"The law clearly allows for this and charities have been part of public debate for decades," Etherington said. "The RSPCA's supporters expect it to speak out on issues they feel strongly about. I am surprised and disappointed by the commission's fierce interrogation of the RSPCA over what seems an entirely legitimate activity. I hope this does not set a precedent for the commission's approach to charities that campaign."

Privately some in the third sector question whether the commission's decision to flex its muscles represents a change in its philosophy since the former journalist and royal biographer William Shawcross was appointed its chairman last year. Three MPs on the public administration select committee voted against Shawcross's appointment, claiming he could not be considered politically impartial, having urged people to vote Conservative.

• Badgers
• Voluntary sector
• Charities
• Animals
• Hunting
• Animal welfare

Jamie Doward
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

Misconceptions about marketing could prevent charities from raising funds and gaining supporters

Last month New Philanthropy Capital's Money for Good UK report revealed that the British public would give £665m more to charity each year if organisations provided more information about evidence of impact and how their money is spent.

In other words, better communications with stakeholders has the potential to transform the fortunes of the sector. So maybe it's time for charities to reconsider what makes good marketing, and the role that it has.

In all my years as a charity sector marketer I've seen some excellent marketing, from both large and small charities. However, I've also come across a lot of widely held misconceptions about what marketing is, and I fear that they are preventing some charities from raising funds and gaining supporters as successfully as they could. I want to look at some of the most common myths, with the aim of helping charities deploy marketing more effectively:

1. Marketing is just about promotion.

Marketing is not just the department that looks after the website or the brochures. Granted, these may be within its remit, but in my view marketing has a much wider purpose. Good marketing means understanding what your stakeholders need, and promoting and evaluating what your charity does accordingly.

2. We don't need to do market research, we already know what our stakeholders want.

Sorry, but you don't. There is no substitute for an in-depth understanding of what your stakeholders need, which is one of the most valuable things that your marketing department can bring to the table. This includes external as well as internal stakeholders, such as staff and volunteers. Market research can be expensive, so if you are on a tight budget consider running online surveys using a low-cost tool such as Surveymonkey. The Market Research Society has also set up a network called Research Aid to help small charities get free help with market research.

3. Small charities don't need marketing staff.

Competition for funding has never been tighter, and it will be difficult to generate income without good in-house communications expertise. If you can't afford to employ a marketing team, marketing still needs to be part of someone's job, and that person will need support and training. Charity Comms offer excellent, reasonably priced events, a great mentoring scheme and even an informal networking group for sole charity communications staff.

4. Marketing can't be measured.

Henry Ford famously said: "I know half of my advertising budget is wasted – I just don't know which half." However, that was before digital. Whether it's looking at how many people have clicked on one of your banner ads, or opened your charity's e-newsletter, measurement is much easier in the digital age. Of course, offline channels should also be measured, such as asking new service users how they heard about your charity. The key thing is to have clear goals that your charity is trying to achieve through its marketing and to measure performance against them. For example, Drinkaware use market research to measure the success of its behavioural change campaigns.

5. Supporters only want to hear about the big numbers.

It's true that stakeholders want to see more evidence of impact, and many charities wheel out the big statistics to demonstrate the difference they make. In my experience this kind of data is much more powerful if it is used alongside individual stories of the people whose lives your charity has transformed. I love this video case study by Whizz Kidz about how their services have helped a little boy called Shea.

6. Cutting my marketing budget will have no effect.

As Dan Pallotta said in his inspirational TED talk recently, nonprofits are under huge pressure to cut marketing spend. Yet as he points out, failure to invest in marketing will result in fewer donors and supporters. He cites how 182,000 people participated in the AIDS Rides and Breast Cancer 3-Day events he led, raising $581m in total, which he attributes to the full-page adverts he placed. While not all charities will have the budget this requires, slashing marketing spend could end up costing your charity dearly in the long run.

7. We only use social media to broadcast our charity's messages.

You won't reap the full benefits of social media unless you use it to have conversations with your stakeholders. This is particularly true of Twitter. Social media expert Kirsty Marrins advises charities to follow the "rule of thirds", ie one third of your tweets should be used to push out your charity's content, one third to engage in conversations, and one third to share content from other useful sources.

I believe that good marketing can transform charities, boosting profile and fuelling growth. If you'd like to know more about this, the Chartered Institute of Marketing is launching its charity market interest group with a special event on 14 May with Georgie Fienberg, founder of Afrikids, and Professor Ian Bruce.

Zoe Amar is a charity marketing and digital communications expert. You can check out her blog here. She tweets @zoeamar.

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

• Impact and effectiveness
• Voluntary sector network blog
• Voluntary sector
• Charities
• Marketing & PR

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

Misconceptions about marketing could prevent charities from raising funds and gaining supporters

Last month New Philanthropy Capital's Money for Good UK report revealed that the British public would give £665m more to charity each year if organisations provided more information about evidence of impact and how their money is spent.

In other words, better communications with stakeholders has the potential to transform the fortunes of the sector. So maybe it's time for charities to reconsider what makes good marketing, and the role that it has.

In all my years as a charity sector marketer I've seen some excellent marketing, from both large and small charities. However, I've also come across a lot of widely held misconceptions about what marketing is, and I fear that they are preventing some charities from raising funds and gaining supporters as successfully as they could. I want to look at some of the most common myths, with the aim of helping charities deploy marketing more effectively:

1. Marketing is just about promotion.

Marketing is not just the department that looks after the website or the brochures. Granted, these may be within its remit, but in my view marketing has a much wider purpose. Good marketing means understanding what your stakeholders need, and promoting and evaluating what your charity does accordingly.

2. We don't need to do market research, we already know what our stakeholders want.

Sorry, but you don't. There is no substitute for an in-depth understanding of what your stakeholders need, which is one of the most valuable things that your marketing department can bring to the table. This includes external as well as internal stakeholders, such as staff and volunteers. Market research can be expensive, so if you are on a tight budget consider running online surveys using a low-cost tool such as Surveymonkey. The Market Research Society has also set up a network called Research Aid to help small charities get free help with market research.

3. Small charities don't need marketing staff.

Competition for funding has never been tighter, and it will be difficult to generate income without good in-house communications expertise. If you can't afford to employ a marketing team, marketing still needs to be part of someone's job, and that person will need support and training. Charity Comms offer excellent, reasonably priced events, a great mentoring scheme and even an informal networking group for sole charity communications staff.

4. Marketing can't be measured.

Henry Ford famously said: "I know half of my advertising budget is wasted – I just don't know which half." However, that was before digital. Whether it's looking at how many people have clicked on one of your banner ads, or opened your charity's e-newsletter, measurement is much easier in the digital age. Of course, offline channels should also be measured, such as asking new service users how they heard about your charity. The key thing is to have clear goals that your charity is trying to achieve through its marketing and to measure performance against them. For example, Drinkaware use market research to measure the success of its behavioural change campaigns.

5. Supporters only want to hear about the big numbers.

It's true that stakeholders want to see more evidence of impact, and many charities wheel out the big statistics to demonstrate the difference they make. In my experience this kind of data is much more powerful if it is used alongside individual stories of the people whose lives your charity has transformed. I love this video case study by Whizz Kidz about how their services have helped a little boy called Shea.

6. Cutting my marketing budget will have no effect.

As Dan Pallotta said in his inspirational TED talk recently, nonprofits are under huge pressure to cut marketing spend. Yet as he points out, failure to invest in marketing will result in fewer donors and supporters. He cites how 182,000 people participated in the AIDS Rides and Breast Cancer 3-Day events he led, raising $581m in total, which he attributes to the full-page adverts he placed. While not all charities will have the budget this requires, slashing marketing spend could end up costing your charity dearly in the long run.

7. We only use social media to broadcast our charity's messages.

You won't reap the full benefits of social media unless you use it to have conversations with your stakeholders. This is particularly true of Twitter. Social media expert Kirsty Marrins advises charities to follow the "rule of thirds", ie one third of your tweets should be used to push out your charity's content, one third to engage in conversations, and one third to share content from other useful sources.

I believe that good marketing can transform charities, boosting profile and fuelling growth. If you'd like to know more about this, the Chartered Institute of Marketing is launching its charity market interest group with a special event on 14 May with Georgie Fienberg, founder of Afrikids, and Professor Ian Bruce.

Zoe Amar is a charity marketing and digital communications expert. You can check out her blog here. She tweets @zoeamar.

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

• Impact and effectiveness
• Voluntary sector network blog
• Voluntary sector
• Charities
• Marketing & PR

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

Round up of expert advice from our recent live discussion on payment by results

Holly Piper, investment manager at CAF Venturesome

Payment by results is a huge opportunity but it has risks: For some charities, Payment by Results is a huge opportunity to pilot innovative approaches to solving social problems. It does however raise a number of challenges, in particular risks concerning income and cash flow. Working with larger partners may not suit all charities, however there is some support for charities that want to take on Payment by Results contracts but they need additional expertise to do so.

The limited size of the social investment sector is a concern: This could restrict the ability of charities to access Payment by Results contracts. Payment by Results is in its early stages. This means that now is a good opportunity to engage with commissioners to help shape contracts that work best for charities and beneficiaries.

Charities need a dedicated outcomes officer: A Payment by Results contract requires the delivery organisation to focus on outcomes and on providing evidence for those outcomes. An outcomes officer can collect and submit the evidence and the costs of this should be part of the Payment by Results contract.

Alex Van Vliet, New Philanthropy Capital (NPC)

Clearly defined variables from the outset are paramount: As the whole Payment by Results debate grows and contracts are pushed into broader areas it is likely that it will start to encompass softer service areas where it will be difficult to provide measurement as evidence.

Simon Lee, leader at Anthony Collins Solicitors

There is a danger of always chasing the next pot of money: Care is needed to ensure that those who are hardest to help and most in need are not left at the bottom of the pile because there are easier ways for the provider to get paid. To have Payment by Results as part of something rather than a whole is more realistic, as this is more workable, realistic and fair to both the providers and recipients of services.

Payment by Results is not going away: Money is tight, commissioners are having their budgets cut and wholesale grant funding isn't going to come back any time soon.

David McHattie, head of charities and corporate banking at Barclays

It is still immature: With the early contracts still having some way to go to maturity, there is a lack of track record to evidence whether they are successful or not at achieving the objectives in the long term.

Payment by Results is relevant for third sector bodies: With reduced amounts of grant funding and increased competition for what there is organisations have to look for earned income through contract delivery.

Payment by Results contracts are not for all: There needs to be a range of other income generating activities to provide ongoing cash flow and support for the charity.

Russell Webster, independent consultant

Those with the highest level of need get the lowest level of service: Even though there are greater incentives for placing people with long-term problems in employment, the overall contract means providers prioritise finding work for those who are easier to place to ensure they have a good cash flow.

Voluntary organisations must be able to analyse: Contracts need to be analysed by the organisation to see if it can work for them. Payment by Results ought to be a positive development, which promotes innovation and better outcomes. There is more room for positive learning in this sort of bottom up approach.

John Seddon, Vanguard Consulting

Payment by Results is nothing more than the current Whitehall fad: Management by attention to output causes people to cheat, improvement is a matter of means not outcomes. The real risk is the waste of public funds: The work programme for example spent hundreds of millions and sent few people back to work.

It is cooperation not competition that drives improvement: Charities should be awarded contracts on the basis of their expertise and altitude not their balance sheet.

Jane Mansour, independent policy consultant

A mixed model of financing makes it easier for some organizations to plan engage. It is possible to use Payment by Results as part of a contract or to pay for discrete outcomes within a larger whole.

Séin Ó Muineacháin, Confederation of British Industry

Public services should be open to competition from the voluntary sector: Competition drives innovation and can maintain or increase quality while making cost savings. If partnerships are designed properly then Payment by Results should not change the nature of charity. Partnerships should facilitate charities by playing to their strengths and doing what they are good at.

Helena Wilkinson, Chantrey Vellacott DFK

Risk needs to be considered in charities: Trustees of charities who wish to enter into Payment by Results contracts need to think about the risk to the organisation not only the running of the contract.

Outcome based contracts can lead to short cuts: If not properly controlled outcome based contracts can lead to shortcuts being taken to deliver the outcome. This can lead to inappropriate behaviour especially if bonuses are involved. For Payment by Results to work you need to have the appropriate monitoring. Organisations need to get the balance right between reporting against outcomes and monitoring their accuracy and quality.

Payment by Results contracts vary immensely: In terms of their conditions and complexity, Payment by Results contracts can be lengthy and detailed. Smaller charities may struggle to access affordable legal advice to wade through a contract.

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

• Voluntary sector network blog
• Voluntary sector
• Charities

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

Round up of expert advice from our recent live discussion on payment by results

Holly Piper, investment manager at CAF Venturesome

Payment by results is a huge opportunity but it has risks: For some charities, Payment by Results is a huge opportunity to pilot innovative approaches to solving social problems. It does however raise a number of challenges, in particular risks concerning income and cash flow. Working with larger partners may not suit all charities, however there is some support for charities that want to take on Payment by Results contracts but they need additional expertise to do so.

The limited size of the social investment sector is a concern: This could restrict the ability of charities to access Payment by Results contracts. Payment by Results is in its early stages. This means that now is a good opportunity to engage with commissioners to help shape contracts that work best for charities and beneficiaries.

Charities need a dedicated outcomes officer: A Payment by Results contract requires the delivery organisation to focus on outcomes and on providing evidence for those outcomes. An outcomes officer can collect and submit the evidence and the costs of this should be part of the Payment by Results contract.

Alex Van Vliet, New Philanthropy Capital (NPC)

Clearly defined variables from the outset are paramount: As the whole Payment by Results debate grows and contracts are pushed into broader areas it is likely that it will start to encompass softer service areas where it will be difficult to provide measurement as evidence.

Simon Lee, leader at Anthony Collins Solicitors

There is a danger of always chasing the next pot of money: Care is needed to ensure that those who are hardest to help and most in need are not left at the bottom of the pile because there are easier ways for the provider to get paid. To have Payment by Results as part of something rather than a whole is more realistic, as this is more workable, realistic and fair to both the providers and recipients of services.

Payment by Results is not going away: Money is tight, commissioners are having their budgets cut and wholesale grant funding isn't going to come back any time soon.

David McHattie, head of charities and corporate banking at Barclays

It is still immature: With the early contracts still having some way to go to maturity, there is a lack of track record to evidence whether they are successful or not at achieving the objectives in the long term.

Payment by Results is relevant for third sector bodies: With reduced amounts of grant funding and increased competition for what there is organisations have to look for earned income through contract delivery.

Payment by Results contracts are not for all: There needs to be a range of other income generating activities to provide ongoing cash flow and support for the charity.

Russell Webster, independent consultant

Those with the highest level of need get the lowest level of service: Even though there are greater incentives for placing people with long-term problems in employment, the overall contract means providers prioritise finding work for those who are easier to place to ensure they have a good cash flow.

Voluntary organisations must be able to analyse: Contracts need to be analysed by the organisation to see if it can work for them. Payment by Results ought to be a positive development, which promotes innovation and better outcomes. There is more room for positive learning in this sort of bottom up approach.

John Seddon, Vanguard Consulting

Payment by Results is nothing more than the current Whitehall fad: Management by attention to output causes people to cheat, improvement is a matter of means not outcomes. The real risk is the waste of public funds: The work programme for example spent hundreds of millions and sent few people back to work.

It is cooperation not competition that drives improvement: Charities should be awarded contracts on the basis of their expertise and altitude not their balance sheet.

Jane Mansour, independent policy consultant

A mixed model of financing makes it easier for some organizations to plan engage. It is possible to use Payment by Results as part of a contract or to pay for discrete outcomes within a larger whole.

Séin Ó Muineacháin, Confederation of British Industry

Public services should be open to competition from the voluntary sector: Competition drives innovation and can maintain or increase quality while making cost savings. If partnerships are designed properly then Payment by Results should not change the nature of charity. Partnerships should facilitate charities by playing to their strengths and doing what they are good at.

Helena Wilkinson, Chantrey Vellacott DFK

Risk needs to be considered in charities: Trustees of charities who wish to enter into Payment by Results contracts need to think about the risk to the organisation not only the running of the contract.

Outcome based contracts can lead to short cuts: If not properly controlled outcome based contracts can lead to shortcuts being taken to deliver the outcome. This can lead to inappropriate behaviour especially if bonuses are involved. For Payment by Results to work you need to have the appropriate monitoring. Organisations need to get the balance right between reporting against outcomes and monitoring their accuracy and quality.

Payment by Results contracts vary immensely: In terms of their conditions and complexity, Payment by Results contracts can be lengthy and detailed. Smaller charities may struggle to access affordable legal advice to wade through a contract.

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

• Voluntary sector network blog
• Voluntary sector
• Charities

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

Charity relationships with fundraising agencies are important and both sides must be treated with respect

'Grubby commercial necessities', 'shoddy treatment', 'absence of respect', 'squeezing of profitability', 'mealy mouthed treatment'.

The litany of negative comments regarding the relationships between charities and their fundraising agencies is surprising. Sure, I wasn't expecting it to be rosy in the garden for everyone, but to read and hear such criticism – particularly regarding the way many charities treat agencies – highlighted considerable discord within the sector. This is worrying, not least because it means those relationships are not achieving their full potential and therefore money is being wasted.

The fundraising agency sector is a multi-million pound industry with a multitude of commercial organisations offering all kinds of creative services to charities, from full strategic development to mass mailings and direct debit fulfilment. Agencies range from large global entities to small, one-man-bands.

The relationships charities have with these agencies are important. One only has to look down the list of winners of the Institute of Fundraising's Partners in Fundraising awards to see the benefits that can be achieved. Outsourcing can be a cost-effective way of tapping into otherwise unattainable expertise. It not only helps the sector raise millions of pounds, but removes the need to hire staff, supports complex fulfilment (that can be turned on and off as demand requires) and offers fresh insight into the business challenges that charities are unable to resolve because either they're too close to the work, or as is often the case, they're actually the problem themselves.

"We once worked with an organisation that wanted to do a capital appeal", says John Baguley, managing director of the International Fundraising Consultancy. "The director was really opposed to working with the very rich. They had also read that poor people gave more. This attitude was sabotaging their ability to raise money."

Yet it would appear that despite offering much needed skills and knowledge, agencies are often badly treated with many reporting that they are "treated like the enemy" with charities trying to "squeeze every last drop of profitability out of the brief."

One consultant who has worked with charities for many years is Ken Burnett, founder of Burnett Works and ClaytonBurnett. He told me about the "lack of trust and respect" many charities have for their agencies, something which is "deteriorating" rather than improving. He acknowledged that charities have a duty to ensure value for money but that the important role agencies play is too often neglected.

Partly to blame for this, he says, is charities' reliance on junior staff to manage these relationships and the large budgets attached to them – a lack of experience which results in ineffective communication. "The phenomenon is easily seen from the agency side when you consider that the same creative team and account managers will produce top class work for one client and poor work for the other with the only real difference being the client and the way they work with the agency."

Maybe so, but for every charity that gets a bad rap there is also an agency that is offering less than perfection. Indeed, many charities say that all too often agencies fail to answer the brief, don't deliver to time or budget and are too interested in pushing their own agendas (the phrase "We think you should develop an app" may sound familiar to many readers).

So how can both charities and agencies create an environment that works for both parties? This requires effort, says Guilliana Castle, direct marketing manager at ABF The Soldier's Charity. In her view, the agency should become an extension of the charity's team, which means the charity has to provide access to staff and information and the agency has to embrace the culture and objectives of the organisation. This is precisely what has been achieved between ABF The Soldier's Charity and its agency On - something that has paid off, not only with regards to the money raised but in helping support the organisation in other areas too.

"During the period when we didn't have a direct marketing manager On seconded a member of their staff to the charity. They were also on the panel when they interviewed for the role," she says.

Another positive example provided by Castle is that of the relationship her former employer Bluefrog had with its client WSPA. "WSPA would provide so many tools: info on their work, their budgets, where the money was going – all the fundamental stuff. By knowing their own charity so well and sharing this with the agency they enabled some really great creative work to happen."

The points raised by Castle are valuable and get the nub of the issue. That this is about a partnership and as such both sides deserve to be treated with respect. Mutual trust, flexibility, and clarity of expectations and responsibilities are vital, as well as an acknowledgement that the agency is not there to do the charity's job but to add value to it. This means everyone at the charity has a stake in the agency, just as they do their employees.

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

• Impact and effectiveness
• Voluntary sector network blog
• Voluntary sector
• Charities
• Impact and effectiveness
• Impact and measurement

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

Welfare reform will have a huge impact on Birmingham's poorest households - but can crisis services cope?
• More data journalism and data visualisation from the Guardian

Birmingham City council's maps of the local impact of social security reform not only reveal which communities will bear the brunt of policies such as the benefit cap and bedroom tax, but suggest the crisis services on hand to pick up the pieces may be rather slender and precarious.

They show that - as might be expected - the areas most heavily hit by multiple welfare cuts are largely in the city's inner core: a belt of deprived wards including Nechells, Aston, Sparkbrook and Ladywood.

These wards also have the highest concentrations of financially vulnerable households and low paid workers, and the lowest scores in terms of community resilience to financial shock.

The mapping project also audits the crisis services provision - food and clothing banks, financial support, financial, housing and legal advice - that may help the most vulnerable residents cope with that shock.

If the voluntary sector - the big society if you like - is to step in when the state recedes (as will be expected in Birmingham and elsewhere) the project suggests this provision is both fragile and thinly spread.

The council, itself having to cut back deeply on services, says it is having to "pick up the consequences" of government welfare reforms, but has limited resources to do so. According to Cllr John Cotton, cabinet member for social cohesion and equalities:

It's back to the 1930s. Here we are, mapping out foodbanks. It's actually immoral, but we have to support people and help them.

Financial shock is certainly what many families in these areas (poverty already entrenched in these areas) are now facing. The council's audit suggests that 1,351 households affected by the benefit cap will lose £88 per week on average, when the reform is rolled out:

Households affected by benefit cap map

In addition, 14,600 social homes in the city are already affected by the bedroom tax, three quarters of them losing between £10 and £20 a week. The map shows that the impact of this is more widespread, taking in outer city wards such as Shard End in the east, and Kingstanding in the north.

BCC tenants affected by the social sector size criteria - count by ward map

The maps are not comprehensive - they do not yet show, for example, how many residents will be also affected by the replacement of disability living allowance with personal independence payments, or how many will be paying council tax for the first time.

But they give a clear indication of where the local welfare state is shrinking as a result of austerity measures, where poverty and hardship is likely to be exacerbated, and where demand for crisis support is likely to be most heavy.

Another map, compiled by the council's multi-agency committee on the impact of welfare reform, shows where these crisis support services are sited across the city.

There is a cluster of services in Nechells ward, in the centre of the city, including no less than four food banks, and seven services labelled "emergency accomodation". But elsewhere provision looks patchy and inconsistent, and in places seemingly unrelated to likely demand.

Wards such as Shard End (home to several large social housing estates), and areas of outlying wards such as Kingstanding, Longbridge, Kings Norton and Brandwood will be hit sharply by welfare reforms, but would appear to be several miles from the nearest crisis service. On the face of it, a long walk awaits for someone who needs a food parcel.

Curiously, Sutton Trinity, a wealthy ward in the north of the City which barely registers on the financial vulnerability scale, and is several miles from the city's clusters of deprivation, has two food banks and a clothing bank. This suggests voluntary sector services may be stronger in those areas where residents have more time and resources to volunteer (where the big society is thriving, if you like).

Birmingham council says the crisis services map is a work in progress, and there may be other small, informal, ad hoc crisis services which it does not yet know about.

It also says, interestingly, that an unspecified number of smaller neighbourhood crisis services that were identified by the council said they did not want to see their services advertised on a council map because they were "fearful of the spike in demand" that the publicity might generate.

Other services have self-imposed capacity limits. The Birmingham Central food bank, run as a franchise of the Trussell trust charity, places geographical limits on its services (serving people who are referred by agencies based in the areas immediately surrounding it). The food bank itself is open just two mornings a week, and food bank recipients are limited to three food parcels a year.

The Trussell Trust has specifically raised the issue of capacity as a problem for crisis food provision. It oversees a franchised network of 345 food banks in the UK, but estimates that nationally:

...there would need to be 750-1,000 foodbanks to provide for people in crisis across the UK. Thousands of people are facing hunger today in towns with no foodbanks.

With demand for emergency support expected to increase as a result of welfare changes, the rising cost of living and shrinking incomes, it is difficult to know how well Birmingham's crisis services will cope.

The council says that the welfare impact maps are currently indicative: for now, they are based on postcode data rather than identified households; while the crisis provision audit (which was carried out with the assistance of the Birmingham voluntary sector), is provisional.

It may be that the wider voluntary sector is more capacious and resilient than the council's crisis map suggests.

But they indicate that the impact of welfare reform on already financially-stretched families and individuals will be serious, while the ability of the voluntary sector (itself hit by grant cuts) to cope with the consequences of social security cuts in a comprehensive or equitable manner is by no means clear.

NEW! Buy our book

• Facts are Sacred: the power of data

More open data

Data journalism and data visualisations from the Guardian

World government data

• Search the world's government data with our gateway

Development and aid data

• Search the world's global development data with our gateway

Can you do something with this data?

• Flickr Please post your visualisations and mash-ups on our Flickr group
• Contact us at data@guardian.co.uk

• Get the A-Z of data
• More at the Datastore directory
• Follow us on Twitter
• Like us on Facebook

• Birmingham
• Welfare
• Food banks
• Benefits
• Bedroom tax
• Housing
• Voluntary sector
• Poverty

Patrick Butler
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

Charities must use a multi-channel approach to engage with supporters of all ages

It is perhaps no surprise to learn that the "mature" age group (born 1945 or earlier) in the UK donates more to charitable causes than any other. However, the not-for-profit sector might be interested to learn how much more. These donors give on average 27% more each year than Generation X (born between 1965 and 1980) and 38% more than Baby Boomers (born between 1946 and 1964).

The Next Generation of UK Giving report by software and services firm Blackbaud and consultancies Xtraordinary Fundraising and Stratcom, surveyed 1,498 UK donors across all generations about how they donate to and engage with not-for-profits. The report revealed that the sector faces a potential long-term donation deficit, with a generation gap clear for all to see.

• "Matures" (born 1945 or earlier) – give an average of £211.30 per year to 5.3 different causes

• "Baby boomers" (born between 1946 and 1964) – give an average of £153.28 per year to 5.4 different causes

• "Generation X" (born between 1965 and 1980) – give an average of £166.63 per year to 4.6 different causes

• "Generation Y" (born between 1981 and 1991) – give an average of £113.22 per year to 4.6 different causes

The challenge for charities is that while they cannot ignore the most generous and loyal Mature age group, they must be mindful that this generation will not be around forever. However, bridging the fundraising generation gap will not be achieved by targeting Generation Y donors, due to their limited giving capacity. Although this group donates the least, they are the age group most likely to volunteer for a cause (29%) and to attend and organise events (16%). They are also the most engaged in participating online and sharing actions with others online, with 27% following a cause on a social network to stay informed and 25% sharing a cause's online content with others.

Generation Y are the donors of the future and not-for-profits should be embarking on a lifetime's journey with them, educating them on fundraising and engaging them online and via social media. Nevertheless, the number of donors within the Baby Boomer and Generation X age groups signify that they are potentially the most valuable group to the third sector, and the report recommends that not-for-profits pay close attention to their giving and communication preferences. Either age group could surpass Matures in total giving, by either finding 3% more donors or by existing donors increasing their average gift by just £12 annually.

But what is the best way of addressing this? There is no "one size fits all" approach and the key to successful fundraising and engagement with supporters of all generations is to be multi-channel.

In terms of how people donate to their favourite causes, there is a perception that it is mostly younger donors that give online, but the report shows this is simply not true. Donors of all ages are donating via an organisation's website. A Mature donor is almost as likely to give an online gift as a Generation Y donor and this is something to bear in mind when thinking about website design. Is the donation page easy to find? Is the website content easy to read? Is the website clearly organised and well-designed? Does it have accessibility options appropriate for the audience, such as alternative font sizes?

Overall, there is tremendous variety in the ways donors are giving, including shop donations, tributes, SMS donations, direct debit and many more. Operating in multiple channels and providing many options to give is the key to reaching donors of all ages.

The same is true when it comes to communicating with potential donors and supporters. The report revealed that every age group felt the most effective way to first learn about a cause was via peer-to-peer communication, whether in-person, email or via social media postings. This demonstrates the importance of giving donors easy ways to share a charity's brand and message.

Furthermore, the report asked donors about ways in which to stay in touch. UK donors most frequently report visiting a charity's website as an important way to stay in touch. As one might expect, the youngest age groups are most likely to report that social media and text messaging are important to them and they are also more likely to value email updates, although neither Boomers nor Matureslag far behind. Older age groups are more likely to value mail communication — yet Generations Y and X follow fairly closely, confirming mail is still an important channel across generations.

Every generation uses every channel, but they do so in different ways and the generational differences with regard to certain channels are not as great as one might expect. Adopting an integrated and multi-channel approach will play a major role in bridging the fundraising generation gap, targeting the right people, at the right time via the most appropriate channel.

Martin Campbell is director of innovation and strategy at Blackbaud Europe.

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

• Fundraising
• Voluntary sector network blog
• Charities
• Voluntary sector
• Communities

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

Charity says up to 650 more food banks are needed across UK to cope with surging demand

More than 350,000 people turned to food banks for help last year, almost triple the number who received food aid in the previous year and 100,000 more than anticipated, according to the UK's biggest food crisis charity.

The Trussell Trust said the dramatic increase in the use of its food banks was set to continue in the coming months as poorer families struggle financially as a result of the government's welfare reforms.

The Trussell Trust executive chairman, Chris Mould, said: "The sheer volume of people who are turning to food banks because they can't afford food is a wake-up call to the nation that we cannot ignore the hunger on our doorstep."

He added: "Politicians across the political spectrum urgently need to recognise the real extent of UK food poverty and create fresh policies that better address its underlying causes. This is more important than ever as the impact of the biggest reforms to the welfare state since it began start to take effect.

"Since 1 April we have already seen increasing numbers of people in crisis being sent to food banks with nowhere else to go."

Although it has established 345 food banks, the trust says there is insufficient capacity nationally and that between 400 and 650 more food banks are needed to cope with expected demand. It is opening new projects at the rate of three a week, but says geographical gaps in coverage mean "thousands of people are facing hunger today in towns with no food banks".

The rise in the numbers of people using Trussell-Trust-backed food banks in part reflects a 76% increase in the number of food banks set up over the past year. But the trust said it had seen a 170% increase in the number of people given food boxes over the same period.

Nearly a third of food parcel recipients had been referred to the trust because their social security benefits had been delayed. A further 15% came as a result of their benefits being cut or stopped (up from 11% in 2011-12). The trust said the majority of people turning to food banks were working-age families.

Mould said: "We're seeing people from all kinds of backgrounds turning to food banks: working people coming in on their lunch-breaks, mums who are going hungry to feed their children, people whose benefits have been delayed and people who are struggling to find enough work."

Trussell food boxes contain three days' supply of non-perishable foods such as tinned fruit, vegetables, meat and fish as well as pasta, cereal, UHT milk, sauces, tea, and long-life juice. Recipients must be referred by care professionals such as social workers or police officers, and are limited to three vouchers a year.

Mary Creagh, the shadow environment secretary, said: "The UK is the seventh richest country in the world yet we face a growing epidemic of hidden hunger with people increasingly unable to meet their family's basic needs. This incompetent government needs to wake up the human cost of their failed economic policies and change course now."

Although the Trussell figures are one of the most robust indicators of the prevalence of food poverty, they represent just a fraction of the growth in emergency food aid in the UK, much of it small-scale and ad hoc, and run through local churches, community groups and housing associations.

The Salvation Army, which also provides emergency food parcels, said many of its local branches ran informal food banks, but it did not collect statistics on a national basis. Anecdotally, it said several of its local branches – known as "corps" – had witnessed an increase in the number of requests for food parcels.

A spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions said the rise in numbers of people using food banks was partly explained by the decision of jobcentres to refer some clients to food banks, and partly a reflection of the success of Trussell's own "marketing activity".

He said: "The government already provides a safety net for essentials like food and housing through the benefits system and claimants can also request a benefit advance or help from their local authority where needed."

However, local authorities have complained that jobcentres are refusing to issue short-term benefit loans to penniless claimants. Many councils have also entered into agreements to refer recipients of local crisis support to food banks following the abolition of the social fund.

• Food banks
• Poverty
• Social exclusion
• Charities
• Voluntary sector

Patrick Butler
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 social benefits of voluntary action are well understood – but do councils recognise the economic role of the voluntary sector?

I was recently invited to address the Council of Europe's Congress of Local and Regional Authorities, focusing on the theme of Europe in crisis and the challenges for local and regional democracy. The conference asked me to talk about how charities and community groups can foster active citizenship. I believe that charities are not just part of the solution to Europe's social problems; they also have a role to play in solving our economic problems.

The social benefits of voluntary action are well understood: charities and community groups bring people together, support communities, and can build social capital. However the economic importance of the voluntary sector is often less recognised.

I know that the voluntary sector alone will not be able to resolve all of the economic problems facing Europe at the moment. But I pointed out that, in the UK, the sector employs nearly 800,000 people, generates a turnover of £37bn and incorporates 20 million people who give up their time to help others every year. This may also be an under-calculation, because so much of it is small scale making it difficult (and expensive) to measure accurately.

My key message was that as well as generating growth in social capital, charities and voluntary organisations can foster economic growth. Along with another national umbrella charity, Locality, we have already called for specific support to foster small-scale economic recovery in the poorest areas. We've called on George Osborne to create a £150m investment fund to help micro-social enterprise and local charities generate growth.

Micro enterprise, which includes small businesses, social enterprises and charities, can create wealth and help keep this money circulating within a local area. I would love to see this approach adopted by local authorities.

Another important role for charities is in providing early intervention support. Investing in these services can save taxpayers billions. However, joined-up local commissioning is needed and we must remove barriers so that public bodies have incentives to invest in preventative services.

Too often the financial benefit of early intervention is gained by a different organisation to the one investing in that work. Local authorities need some reward if public health education is to result in cheaper hospital admissions. And if local authorities help cut crime, why should only policing budgets benefit?

I finished by sharing the Local Government Association's "graph of doom". This shows that cuts to local authorities allied with higher costs of children's services, waste disposal and adult social care will squeeze the discretionary income councils can choose to deploy down to a small percentage.

It has been said that this will mean there will be no room in future years to support voluntary action. I look at it another way – the challenges are so great that we cannot possibly overcome them through one sector alone. We will need to work together. But do all local authorities share this understanding?

Joe Irvin is chief executive of the National Association for Voluntary and Community Action

This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. Join the local government network for news, views and career opportunities in your area.

• Local government network blog
• Finance
• Policy
• Local economies
• Local government
• Voluntary sector

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

Civil service graduates could benefit charities with their insight if they do a secondment through Charity Next

A secondment scheme is giving tomorrow's top civil servants the chance to find out what it's like to work for a charity. Charity Next matches graduates on the civil service Fast Stream development programme with mostly year-long workplace opportunities in voluntary organisations.

So far 47 graduates have arranged a secondment through Charity Next as a recognised placement during their Fast Stream programme in their third or fourth year. "By then the graduates have got a broad baseline. They have had experience of government and placements within different departments and can benefit charities because they have that mixed insight of government," explains Rebecca Ling, Charity Next project manager.

Only three of the secondees have been established civil servants, but that could all be about to change. The Whitehall and Industry Group (WIG), the charity which offers Charity Next as part of its portfolio to develop links between the public, private and voluntary sectors, is keen to expand the scheme. It wants to attract more civil servant managers and those in senior posts to Charity Next so they can boost their experience beyond Whitehall.

The move fits neatly with the Cabinet Office's own plans for the civil service. The civil service reform plan, published last June, recommends that in future any ambitious civil servant will be expected to spend part of their career outside of government working in the private or public sectors. WIG's chief executive and former career civil servant Mark Gibson is confident the charity sector has the capacity, and interest, to meet any increased demand for secondments. "If we get more candidates we can find charities that will take them," he says.

Each charity pays WIG a £1,000 fee per secondment to help meet the costs of the project manager's salary. The host charity and the civil service split the cost of the secondment, which includes the graduate's salary, at around £25,000 each. The secondment role is decided by the charity with some choosing to use it as an opportunity to fill an existing vacancy so that the funding is already there.

The Prince's Regeneration Trust has taken on five Fast Streamers over five years who have all worked as its education and policy manager. Chief executive Ros Kerslake says all the secondees have been "outstanding" and the charity would be unable to afford to employ people of their calibre in normal circumstances: "We are getting value for money, what we are getting are the brightest of people who have been recruited into the civil service who are seen as having high potential.

"The secondment is also useful for the graduate because they are given a lot of responsibility and capacity to do things and they understand about charities and the third sector and take that back with them."

Gibson says the graduates also learn what it is like to work with government from the outside. "They get experience of community engagement and also how government looks on the front line which is a different view from the one you get sitting in Whitehall," he says.

"They didn't understand how difficult government can be to work with from the outside, and from the outside it's a lot more complex than they thought."

It is a view shared by former Fast Stream graduate Ruth Stubbles who was seconded to the trust in 2009 and is now senior policy adviser in the flood-risk management team at Defra. She says: "A key learning point was experiencing what it is like to be delivering projects outside government. This may sound obvious, but I learnt first-hand what it is like to be on the receiving end of government policy and regulations and the challenges that this can sometimes bring."

Some 59 charities have signed up to the scheme including the British Heart Foundation, Barnardo's and Leonard Cheshire Disability. The majority of graduates have come from the generalist Fast Stream and there has been the highest demand from charities for those with economic expertise.

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

• Voluntary sector network blog
• Professional development
• Voluntary sector
• Charities

Debbie Andalo
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