23/06/14 NETWORKING BME ORGANISATIONS: An evaluation of the work of - - PDF document

23/06/14 1

NETWORKING BME ORGANISATIONS: An evaluation of the work of the Black and Minority Ethnic Advice Network (BAN) Preeti Kathrecha

• Constitutes a relatively unheard part of the third sector and there is a lack of research

(Craig 2011)

• Has potentially been constrained by a pre-existing set of structures and practices and

has already developed ways of working that may not necessarily suit the BME VCS (Kendal, 2003)

• Does it exist as a distinct ‘sector’ or ‘entity’ and what are its identifying features

(Mayblin and Soteri-Proctor, 2011)

• The ability to maintain services to communities, whilst also being able to have a

political impact? (Mayblin and Soteri-Proctor, 2011)

• Specific issues affecting BME organisations and the communities that they represent,

are unaddressed, and their influence on generic concerns in society is disproportionately marginalised (Afridi and Warmington 2009; Craig, 2011)

23/06/14 2

• Literature provides more examples of identifying the need for strategic to work, in

partnership with other BME and/or mainstream organisations rather than examples of actual practice, particularly in relation to any funded work

• Discussions on partnership working are in relation to accessing funding and resources

and improving coordination and leadership within the sector partnerships work at regional but not at national level

• Organisations are feeling under pressure to protect their org and its services rather than

seek to develop alliances with others

• Majority of BME organisations are excluded from tendering at the initial stage because

their income turnover is insufficient to meet per-tender requirements Recognition that BMER strategic partnerships should, or could, be a way forward, particularly in relation to organisational survival (Ware 2013)

• An evaluation of the impact of the BAN partnership, including leadership, operation and

effectiveness and impact on BMER communities in London

• A critical evaluation of the BAN delivery model including shortcomings and

recommendations for improvement

• An evaluation of the monitoring tools
• The report also presents member organisation’s views on key issues affecting the BMER

communities they serve and highlight any gaps in services

23/06/14 3

• Est 2007
• An integrated network of advice services, delivered for and by the people from

London's migrant refugee communities

• 43 organisations – history of working together
• Facilitated by AdviceUK
• Elected steering group of member orgs
• A partnership of 18 agencies in BAN received London Councils funding
• some organisations also receive funding for VAWG work
• Described by it’s members as ‘A unique network’
• BAN has been well funded by London Councils since 2008

“A model for partnership working able to deliver services across the whole of London” Neither of BAN’s two applications to London Councils (2013-2015) was recommended for funding The Grants Committee decided not to change the recommendation BAN submitted a petition with 868 signatures to the London Councils Leaders' Committee in March 2013 calling on them to save BAN's funding – it decided against funding BAN

23/06/14 4

• Provide free confidential advice - services delivered in over 35 community languages
• All hold at least the minimum accreditation, of General Help kite mark and/or are

registered with the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner

• Majority established 1980s onwards
• 87% Registered Charity, 7% Company limited by guarantee
• 79% operated across all London boroughs – 7% nationally
• Most rely on between 2-5 full time staff and between 11-30 volunteers
• Main funding is from grant making trusts (93.5%), donations (71%), local authority

(48.4%)

• 1/3 have an annual turnover of £100-£200k, and most remain under this threshold
• Organisations see more women (58.6%) than men (37.9%); but only 7% reported they

provide ‘women’s services’

!

Percent Welfare benefits 82.8% Immigration & Asylum 72.4% Housing 69.0% Education 55.2% Employment 55.2% Health 51.7% Domestic violence 48.3% Family support 48.3% Training 48.3% Racism, equality & discrimination 41.4% Culture/Arts 31.0% Social Care 27.6% Sports 6.9%

23/06/14 5

"

100% 90% 41% 34% 41% 59% 69% 38% 72% 24% 69% 72% 69% 79% 21% 7% 7% 24%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Advice and information – face to face Advice and information - telephone Community development projects Elder clubs ESOL Interpretation and translation services Increasing awareness/campaigning Legal representation at courts & tribunal Legal advice and information Lunch clubs Outreach advice sessions Referrals Training programmes Volunteering Youth clubs IT classes Women's services Other

#

Percent Law Centre/Legal Service 93.1% Other BAN members 82.8% Charity 82.8% Local authority 69.0% Health service 69.0% CAB 65.5% Private solicitor 58.6% NHS 51.7% Further Education 48.3% Government 31.0% Schools 27.6% Other 10.3%

23/06/14 6

$"

• 80% happy with the current governance of BAN
• Monitoring tool - QMR – should be more reflective of the services provided, complex
• Mixed reactions towards meeting - 21% unsure how useful BAN meetings were
• Recognition of successful initiatives implemented by the steering group included:
• rganising training, help establish referral mechanisms, designed and tried to establish

common advice recording systems, Advice Pro software used for advice case recording referral systems were progressed, work on advice quality

• 52% received BAN support in achieving a quality accreditation – 69% AQS, 28%

Investors in People 21% OISC

• more could be done by the steering group in terms of policy, campaigning and

development work for non-funded groups

"

“I think in terms of participation, collaborative processes, I would say that the BAN network is a quite outstanding sample of success for so many...Especially considering that there are different capacities for each organisation and that everybody is encouraged to participate”

• 81% rate overall quality of services received through BAN as very good or good
• 1/3 members found training organised through BAN very useful and feel BAN is good

at using the existing capacity and expertise of member organisations

• Quality of support and advice received through BAN (Very useful, useful):

Support with campaigns (59%) Engagement with policy/strategy (52%) Arranging training (52%) 1:1 development support (42%) Fundraising support (38%) Business planning (17%) Other support/advice/activity (35%) = (employment law advice, networking, arranging for insurance cover; partnership development locally with other BMER groups; help with writing policies and volunteers training)

23/06/14 7

• Benefit

Percent Increased networking 82% Enabled collaborative working 75% Greater representation in forums, networks, local strategic partnerships 68% Participating in training courses 61% Improved access to funding 57% Strong basis to develop services 57% Improved access to resources 54% Better monitoring and evaluation 46% Increased capacity building 46% Achieved a quality assurance accreditation 43%

• Orgs see BAN as a successful networking model and for some of the smaller
• rganisations the only way forward in a climate of heavy competition for funding and

funding cuts.

• a stronger community voice - enhanced reputation amongst local BMER community
• Sharing of knowledge and best practice and being able to influence locally
• having a greater capacity to engage in the local framework
• have more proactive strategies for raising awareness of specific BMER communities
• provided an opportunity to problem solve and troubleshoot issues faced by orgs
• Benefits of collaborative working - access to speakers and other BMER organisations,

planning strategies to a common problem, self help group

• Provided a structure and tools to deliver a service more effectively
• skills, knowledge and confidence of staff and volunteers has grown

23/06/14 8

"

Strongly Agree/Agree Neither Agree nor disagree Able to access entitlements 74% 11% Aware of local services 74% 15% Aware of their rights 78% 15% Cohesive 59% 19% Empowered 63% 26% Forthcoming 59% 22% Other 11% 15%

%"

• Strong collaborative processes
• gives legitimacy to the work of the organisations and wider BMER agenda
• Genuine commitment to work together – despite no funding

“elsewhere it's about me, me, me, my organisation- not here”

• “legitimises by the sector by bringing us together”
• Both Pan London and local influence and expertise
• BAN model inspires local models
• The impact and benefits of the BAN model on service users is perceived to be much

greater than mainstream models e.g. CAB ‘one stop shop’ Vs ‘hand holding’ life journey approach

• This whole person approach is echoed in case studies provided by organisations as

examples of where users have “fallen through gaps in mainstream services”

23/06/14 9

%" !

• Potential danger of developing a two tier response between funded and unfunded

groups within BAN

• Member commitment and capacity
• Stronger leadership and delegation
• Long term vision/strategy Vs reactive approach
• Funding complacency - the future of BAN hinges on its ability to attract funding
• Capacity of AdviceUK to continue to lead all funding bids – members need to step up
• 93% agree they would continue membership regardless if specific funding was attached

To what extent would you be able to access similar help/assistance if BAN did not exist? A limited amount 62% With difficulty 23% Not at all 8% How BAN can support organisations: Enable us to conduct research 54.2% Provide legal and contractual advice 45.8% Assist with monitoring & evaluation 33.3% Assist with premises issues 29.2% Conduct governance audits 25.0%

23/06/14 10

!

Funding support

Joint & consortium bids Fundraising support Identify resources Conduct needs analysis

Long term Policy Work

Stronger vision & policy voice Use casework for a stronger evidence base Less reactive more long term More lobbying & campaigning

Training

Free low cost training Capacity building support Information sessions Changes in law

Networking, partnership & promotion

Greater promotion of BAN Build the network Promote BAN

• rgs

Become THE information hub

• The work of BAN revolves around collaboration. This has not been collaboration for the

sake of it but collaboration explicitly focused on generating benefits for the BMER sector. BAN needs to build upon this to ensure its survival and strength.

A Stronger BAN

Leadership Shared Learning Events Fundraising A Policy Agenda Campaigning Consultation & Marketing

Research

Ideas & Skills Exchange

23/06/14 11

• “There is no other equivalent network in London and our communities

although different, face some similar issues. Working together and sharing our concerns makes us stronger and more visible.” “The BAMER sector needs more visibility and participation. We need to do more policy and advocacy work together, BAN is an excellent tool to allow us to do this.” “I was amazed at how positive everybody was to working with each

• ther, at no stage has anybody got up and walked out that door,

slammed the table or hit anybody, there were no fights, it's done, it was incredible.”