NETWORKING BME ORGAN
An evaluation of the work of the Black and Minority Ethnic Advice Network (BAN)
Final Report June 2014
Preeti Kathrecha, Alessio D’Angelo
NETWORKING BME ORGANISATIONS
An evaluation of the work of the Black and Minority Ethnic Advice Network (BAN)
Preeti Kathrecha, Alessio D’Angelo
and Minority Ethnic Advice Network (BAN)
2
The Social Policy Research Centre (SPRC), Middlesex University
The Social Policy Research Centre (SPRC) at Middlesex University, London initiates and supports high quality research of national and international standing. Its researchers use innovative methodologies to undertake research on new and emerging topics within the social sciences, in particular with neglected and marginalised communities, at a local, national and international level. The Centre actively promotes interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research. Staff are involved in a wide range of projects funded by research councils, the EU, government departments and the major charities.
The SPRC publishes academic papers and books, as well as reports and briefs for policy makers, practitioners and community groups. The Centre runs events, including conferences, seminars and short courses including research training. In addition, the SPRC supports postgraduate research students, including research council funded students and a number of well-established masters programmes. For further information and to view reports from our recent projects please visit: www.sprc.info
3
NETWORKING ORGANISATIONS: AN EVALUATION OF THE WORK OF THE BLACK AND MINORITY ETHNIC ADVICE NETWORK (BAN)
Preeti Kathrecha, Alessio D’Angelo
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 5
2. The BMER Advice Network (BAN) 7
2.1 About BAN 7
2.2 The State of BAN Funding 8
3. Survey findings 10
3.1 The BMER Community in London 10
3.2 BAN organisations 13
3.3 BAN Activities & Services 19
3.4 Benefits to Organisations 23
3.5 Benefits to Service Users 27
3.6 The Future of BAN 29
4. How BAN can further support organisations 34 5. How BAN increase its impact
on the BMER community in London 39
6. Recommendations – Building synergies 41
Appendix: Case Studies - Benefits to Service Users (as a result of funding through BAN)
4
Research Team and Acknowledgements
The research project was coordinated by Preeti Kathrecha and Alessio D’Angelo (Social Policy Research Centre, Middlesex University), working closely with AdviceUK’s coordinator, Wesley Harcourt and Day-Mer's coordinator, Taylan Sahbaz.
The research team would like to thank all the people who generously gave their time to assist with this project, either responding to our questionnaire, taking part to the interviews or providing us with data, information and advice. Organisations involved as informants and interviewees included:
Asian Women's Resource Centre Barnet Refugee Service
Bosnia and Herzegovina Community Advice Centre
Day-Mer Turkish and Kurdish Community Centre
East European Advice Centre Iranian Community Centre (ICC) Iranian Association
Iraqi Association Island Advice Centre Latin American House
Latin American Women's Rights Service Migrants Resource Centre
Notre Dame Refugee Centre
Sangam Association of Asian Women Tamil Relief Centre in Great Britain (TRC) Tamil Welfare Association (Newham) UK
Welwitschia Legal Advice Centre Afro Asian Advisory Service Asylum Aid
Asylum Support Appeals Project (ASAP) Centre for Armenian Information & Advice Iranian & Kurdish Women's Rights
Organisation Limehouse Project
Multilingual Community Rights Shop Newham Monitoring Project
Refugee & Migrant Forum of East London Refugee Women's Association
Roma Support Group Sangat Advice Centre London Councils Stonewall Housing LCVS
For further information about the research project please contact the SPRC:
Email: [email protected]
5
1. Introduction
In the current competitive environment the ability to deliver quality, value for money services is being challenged despite the continuing need for language and culturally appropriate advice provision, especially in areas of London that have under-developed services and where demand for advice currently outstrips supply.
The current economic crisis and the ongoing welfare restructuring are having a disproportionate impact on Black and Minority Ethnic people in London and throughout the UK. This is exacerbated by low income, deprivation, poor housing and health issues, and high rates of unemployment combined with language barriers. As far-reaching government changes to commissioning advice provision affect an already disadvantaged population, local community organisations, fuelled by a need to work and advocate even more effectively for their clients, are competing for funding, raising strong concerns around the sustainability of the BME advice sector.
Established in 2007, the Black & Minority Ethnic Advice Network, (BAN), has been described by its members as ‘a unique network’ and, in this environment, has still been able to preserve the existence of a network and commit to working together to progress the innovative collaborative work established over the last five years. The partnership is meeting regularly, sharing good practice, identifying strategies to address common issues of service delivery and sharing resources to this end, developing the infrastructure of the partnership and service projects and is actively inputting into local and regional advice strategies.
About the Project
BAN is an integrated network of free and confidential advice services, delivered for and by people from London's black and minority ethnic refugee and migrant communities.
This report aims to evaluate the work of BAN over the last 7 years to inform the network to adapt its delivery model such that it is best placed to continue to deliver linguistically and culturally appropriate advice services to BMER communities in London. More specifically this study evaluated the BAN delivery model including shortcomings and recommendations for improvements and the impact of the BAN partnership, including leadership, operation and effectiveness and impact on BMER communities in London.
The report also presents member organisation’s views on key issues affecting the BMER communities they serve and highlight any gaps in services. The recommendations from the report aim to address how BAN can continue to be in the best position to deliver efficient high quality, value for money advice services to London’s BMER communities who otherwise may not be able to overcome the barriers that prevent them from accessing mainstream advice services.
6
BAN is facilitated by AdviceUK who commissioned this research through the Third Sector Research Centre (TSRC)1 funded ‘Social Enterprise Research Cluster’ vouchers. These Vouchers enable Third Sector Organisations (TSOs) to commission short research projects from partner universities and to access particular researcher knowledge bases.
The first phase of the research involved disseminating an online questionnaire to the organisations in BAN. The questionnaire made use of both closed and open questions, a total of 33 responses were received out of 43 member organisations. The second phase involved a focus group with member organisations at a network meeting. The third phase of the research involved one to one interviews with 7 member organisations and external stakeholders. The latter included a representative of London Councils, organisations that had worked with BAN either through consultancy or training, Stonewall Housing and London Council for Voluntary Services (LCVS) and other BMER infrastructure organisations. These interviews helped gather further insights on the working of BAN, the impact of BAN funding, impressions of the BAN network and impact of work on external organisations and insights from other BMER networks. The final phase involved an assessment of materials and operation such as the Quarterly Monitoring Form (QMR), past funding bids and a steering group meeting.
1 See http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/generic/tsrc/about/index.aspx
7
2. The BMER Advice Network (BAN) 2.1 About BAN
BAN members provide free, confidential advice on a range of issues; services are delivered in more than 35 community languages. BAN grew quickly after its establishment in 2007 and currently has 43 members, most of whom have a strong history of working together. BAN is facilitated by AdviceUK and governed by an elected steering group of member organisations.
The aims of BAN are:
• to promote access to good quality, culturally appropriate advice services to all Londoners;
• to promote, foster, develop and encourage closer working relationships amongst partner organisations;
• to provide a voice for the BME-led advice sector in London, and assist and influence policy and decision-making where it affects the work of the sector.
Within BAN, there is a group of 19 organisations funded by London Councils and managed by AdviceUK. The aim of this partnership is to improve access to advice for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic and refugee and migrant communities, in the spheres of welfare rights, housing, immigration and asylum, health, education and employment. During the period of funding from November 2008 to March 2013, this group of 19 organisations together provided advice to over 12,000 Londoners a year covering every London borough. Even though the advice commission has come to an end, the partnership continues to exist and BAN members deliver services for and by the people from London's diverse migrant and refugee communities made possible through other sources of funding or through voluntary input. BAN’s cross-borough work enabled by London Council’s funding complements the services provided locally and BAN continues to help London’s BMER communities with their advice needs with a holistic approach.
All BAN member services hold at least the minimum accreditation, of General Help kite mark and/or are registered with the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner. In general BAN members continue to deliver free and confidential advice services across London in the following areas of law:
Asylum, Immigration, Housing, Homelessness, Debt/money, Welfare benefits, Education Employment, Health, Racial discrimination, Domestic Violence, Community Care and education. In addition, BAN members provide legal representation services in: Asylum, Asylum Support, Immigration and Welfare Benefits.
8
2.2 The State of BAN Funding
BAN has been funded by London Councils since 2008.2 At that time London Councils funding priorities were evolving and advice services were beginning to be funded through commissioning in contrast to previous grant funding. Organisations were thinking about how they were going to be funded particularly in the light of this new commissioning and its ‘top-down’ approach where advice priorities were set by commissioning bodies.
“With grant funding, there was a certain level of independence the organisations enjoyed in terms of designing and delivering the service as according to needs they identified themselves... But commissioning, you know, being the privatisation basically, began to commission these priorities... So if some things weren't caught by their policy and the list of priorities, it was tough luck!” BAN Member
As a result expressions of service delivery with partnership and consortia approaches became popular and AdviceUK accommodated these expressions. In November 2008, BAN was awarded commissions for advice. Some organisations within BAN were also provided commissions for women's work relating to domestic violence and women specific services.
The focus of London Councils newly commissioned grants scheme delivering the annual programme from 2013/14 has been reduced by 70% and focuses on outcomes against more narrow set of London wide priorities as opposed to providing core-funding. These priorities are: homelessness, sexual and domestic violence, poverty and capacity building support for the voluntary sector priorities.
Neither of BAN’s two applications to London Councils from 2013-2015 was recommended for funding. On appeal the Grants Committee decided not to change the recommendation. BAN submitted a petition with 868 signatures to the London Councils Leaders' Committee on 12 March 2013 calling on them to save BAN's funding but unfortunately the Committee decided against funding BAN.
The response to the petition from Mayor Jules Pipe highlighted,
“Commissions have been awarded to organisations or partnership bids that can demonstrate delivery as far as is practical on a ‘pan-London’ basis focussed on priority need, that add value but do not duplicate borough councils services, demonstrate the ability to meet the outcomes outlined in the specification as well as provide value for money to the boroughs who fund them”3.
Advice UK applied under a new round of funding in autumn 2013. At its meeting of 20 February 2013 the Grants Committee agreed to fund Advice UK under Priority 4 (capacity building support for the voluntary sector priorities), but did not decide to fund Advice UK and the BAN partnership under Priority 1 (homelessness).
2 Funding was originally awarded to Advice UK for the BAN partnership for the period 01/11/2008-31/10/2012.
Funding was then extended beyond the original end date to 31/03/2013.
3 http://www.advisercpd.org.uk/bmeadvicenetwork/docs/Mayor%20Jules%20Pipe%20letter.pdf 12 April 2013
9 Reasons for this decision are,
“The application did not clearly describe how it would meet the majority of the specification principles particularly all outcomes, non-duplication, links with the homelessness sector and boroughs to complement existing services. A sufficient homelessness focus was not demonstrated partnership information needed to be stronger.”4
The overall budget for the grants scheme for 2013-14 was agreed at Leaders’ Committee November 2012. This followed a series of reductions to the scheme in previous years. Consultation was undertaken with regards to the reduction of funded services. The reduction of public sector spending was taken into account, but the primary reason was with regard to ensuring the scheme was genuinely pan-London, which resulted in a reduction to the size of the scheme with regard to services which were deemed to be local in nature. This decision was taken in line with the localism agenda.
“The review takes place against a background of large cuts in public sector spending, and in a context where constituent councils may not be in a position to contribute as much as previously to the grants budget.”5
London Councils state that BAN can improve its funding prospects by noting the recommendations outlined in the Grants Committee report of 20 February 2013 and to review the score card for the BAN partnership application.
BAN is one of the last BMER specific advice projects to be funded by local government as many statutory funders try to mainstream BMER advice services or cut back on advice altogether. Some London Boroughs have moved to commissioning ‘Advice in community languages’ or a ‘Community advice partnership’ but these do not recognise or understand that trust is a key factor why BMER communities will only use services provided by their own community.
“The cuts to BAN advice services will mean that the poorest and most disadvantaged BMER communities will be denied access to essential welfare benefits, housing and homelessness advice services in London, which will risk leaving BMER communities destitute”. Advice UK However, despite the loss of funding for some of the member organisation’s core services BAN continues to serve its communities while looking at innovative ways of re-modelling itself; AdviceUK has agreed to continue to support the network, acting as coordinator.
4 Grants Committee report, Item 4, Appendix 17, page 147. Available at:
http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/committees/meetings.htm?pk_meeting=1021&comid=3
Reports on the progress of the BAN partnership can be found in various Grants Committee reports. These include: Grants Committee, February 2010
http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/committees/agenda.htm?pk_agenda_items=3923 Grants Committee, May 2011, Item 4, Appendix 10, Service 38
http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/committees/agenda.htm?pk_agenda_items=4424
5 Grants Committee, May 2011, Item 4 -
http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/committees/meetings.htm?pk_meeting=781&comid=3 (and Leaders’
Committee May 2011)
10
3. Survey Findings
3.1 The BMER Community in London
3.1.1 Barriers
BAN members were asked about the BMER communities they serve in London and any barriers they face in accessing local services. The majority strongly agreed language is a barrier when trying to access services. Members feel there is a general lack of information for BMER communities, particularly from mainstream services. Mainstream services may provide advice but BAN members feel their communities do not necessarily know how to implement that advice. This could be linked to a lack of self confidence and attitudes that BMER people face. This could partly explain why there is a general lack of trust in mainstream services and in the independence of service providers and feeling powerless when facing someone in authority.
The proliferation of new technology and how that has contributed to digital exclusion is also seen as an emerging barrier and challenge for the way in which member organisations have to provide their services. The holistic or ‘hand holding’ approach is being pressured by having to teach people about online processes as well.
“...to teach them not only about what's out there in terms of their rights and helping them safeguard that, but also we are ending up having to be teachers in order to empower them further by saying by-the-way you also need to know how to use computers...and that is an enormous struggle because someone obviously won't know the language never mind how to use computers or cannot afford to buy computers or even if they have computers, they need a continual technical support...” BAN member
Table 1: What barriers do the BMER community face when trying to access local services?
Strongly
Agree Agree
Neither agree nor
disagree
Disagree Strongly disagree
Language difficulties 23 3 1 0 0
Self confidence (lack of) 21 4 1 0 0
Attitudes (feel unwelcome or weren't
trusted) 20 5 1 0 0
Discrimination 16 6 4 0 0
Family, community or cultural constraints 16 9 2 0 0
Lack of qualifications, knowledge or skills 16 8 2 1 0
Cost 15 6 3 1 0
Caring responsibilities
e.g. childcare, elderly care, disabled 14 9 3 0 0
Other 6 0 1 0 1
11
Other more practical barriers include the accessibility of services outside working hours and having to travel long distances to get help. Members are also aware that there are increasingly more financial burdens on accessing services. Within the sphere of cultural constraints, members suggested the cultural and traditional roles expected of some BMER women and girls may be a further barrier.
3.1.2 Limitations in meeting the needs of BMER Communities
When asked about the limitations they face in meeting the needs of the BMER community the majority of organisations state cost or lack of funds as the major limitation. Table 2 below shows they strongly disagree that they are not trusted, have a lack of skills or have a poor network. Other limitations include partner organisations competing rather than supporting each other, facing an increased demand for services whilst also facing funding cuts and a lack of long term funding security. Most organisations share the view that the current funding and resourcing climate created by welfare reform and austerity measures have exacerbated existing limitations.
Table 2: What limitations does your organisation have in meeting the needs of the BMER community?
Strongly
Agree Agree
Neither agree nor
disagree
Disagree Strongly disagree
Attitudes (not trusted) 0 1 5 3 14
Lack of skills 0 0 2 7 12
Poor network 0 0 6 6 10
Lack of staffing/volunteers 4 8 5 3 4
Cost/lack of funds 18 8 1 0 0
Other 0 1 3 0 0
3.1.3 Gaps in services for BMER Communities
BAN members were asked, ‘What are the main gaps in the services available to your local BMER community?’ Their responses revolve around the lack of tailored services and a feeling that mainstream services don't have resources to meet their needs and lack awareness of the specific needs of BMER Communities. They feel there is “excessive bureaucracy, complexity around changing statutory service structures”, and that better funding and resources would facilitate increased services around the gaps highlighted below:
• Lack of existing specialist services - There is a common perception that most local authorities show little awareness of the needs of existing BMER communities (particularly the newer communities, refugees and asylum seekers) and are therefore targeting them for service provision. This is particularly true for advice services. Organisations feel their specialist skills and experience are not recognised by statutory agencies and the mainstream advice sector and feel there is insufficient advice and support provision for BMER people, many of whom are fearful or reluctant to go to mainstream agencies. Members feel that there is a particular lack of specialist services in: advice about welfare reforms; employment opportunities and funds for individuals when facing great debts; not enough provision for
12
mental health sufferers and their carers. The largest mainstream advice service provider, the CAB, faced particular criticism. Members feel the CAB model, described as a “one size fits all” approach, is not designed to deal with BMER communities and specialist advice services that BAN members run are seen as a more effective model.
“…So it's not like a supermarket where you go, you buy something and you walk out, there's no kind-of attachment, there's no kind-of loyalty involved, that stems from the fact that these people are part of our organisation. Most of them anyway, who value and trust us and even when we refer them somewhere else, they will always come back to us and say, you know, this is what they've said. Is this correct? Is there anything else we can do? And so forth, so there's this continual dialogue of continual engagement with our users is what really stands out in comparison to, like let's say, the CAB.” BAN member
• Poor awareness of language needs - There need to be better bi-lingual advice and information services for people whose English language is limited who because of language barriers cannot access mainstream advice services. For the same reason they aren't aware of any changes about their rights and entitlements. In particular there are few free services around advice and casework on welfare benefits and housing (particularly in Spanish and Portuguese). There is also a lack of interpreters and language support and a lack of information made available in other languages. There is also a perception that signposting and information about BMER services is poor; particularly information in different languages.
• Poor legal provision - Access to legal aid, lawyers and free legal advice is seen as a gap in services for BMERs, particularly in the light of changes to legal aid which has decreased access to legal advice provision. Accessing legal representations for immigration cases such as women suffering domestic violence and with no recourse to public funds, is also seen as a gap.6 Some members feel there is a need for more legal or radical campaigning.
“Changes to legal aid have meant that BME communities have not been able to access legal advice unless they provided proof of income.” BAN member
• Culturally appropriate services – BMER people may suffer isolation because of a lack of culturally appropriate services in their area. There is a consensus that there are very few organisations which provide culturally appropriate network opportunities and places where BMERs can develop skills and knowledge. They feel that mainstream services lack a culturally sensitive approach and as a result BMER communities may be reluctant to access services, especially when combined with language barriers, uncertain migration status and a lack of
6 The no recourse to public funds requirement (NRPF), dictated that persons coming to the UK on marriage must be financially supported by their spouses or must support themselves by working. They are not entitled to financial assistance from the state including most forms of welfare benefits, or social housing.
13
knowledge about the system in the UK. Groups with more complex needs such as BMER homeless women may suffer because of such gaps. They may face further difficulties for example in accessing with no recourse to public funds.
• Tackling discrimination effectively - There is an overall lack of statutory / multi-agency response to provide effective, fair and fast redress for racial harassment.
3.2 BAN organisations
In July 2013 BAN consisted of the following organisations working for the BMER communities across London. The table below shows which organisations received previous London Councils funding through BAN and whether they completed the survey questionnaire for this research.
Table 3: BAN Organisations –survey response
Funded Non-funded
Completed survey
Asian Women's Resource Centre Barnet Refugee Service
Bosnia and Herzegovina Community Advice Centre
Day-Mer Turkish and Kurdish Community Centre
East European Advice Centre Iranian Community Centre (ICC) Iranian Association
Iraqi Association Island Advice Centre Latin American House
Latin American Women's Rights Service Migrants Resource Centre
Notre Dame Refugee Centre Sangam Association of Asian Women Tamil Relief Centre in Great Britain (TRC) Tamil Welfare Association (Newham) UK Welwitschia Legal Advice Centre
Afro Asian Advisory Service Asylum Aid
Asylum Support Appeals Project (ASAP) Centre for Armenian Information & Advice Iranian & Kurdish Women's Rights Organisation Limehouse Project
Multilingual Community Rights Shop Newham Monitoring Project
Refugee & Migrant Forum of East London Refugee Women's Association
Roma Support Group Sangat Advice Centre
Not completed survey
Haringey Somali Community & Cultural Association (HSCCA)
Chinese Community Centre
Community of Congolese Refugees in Great Britain (CORECOG)
Embrace UK Community Support Centre Kurdish Association
Lewisham Refugee Network Refugee Action Kingston
Refugee and Migrant Network Sutton Tallo Information Centre
The majority of organisations were established in the 1980s and onwards confirming their established relationships and reputations within various BMER communities across London.
14 Table 4: When was the organisation established?
Year Percentage Count
2000 onwards 22% 7
1990s 19% 6
1980s 51% 16
1970s 6% 2
The organisations operate as registered charities (87%) and company limited by guarantee (7%) or both (6% ‘Other’=both).
Figure 1: Type of organisation
The work of BAN member organisations is done across all London Boroughs (79.3%). Tower Hamlets is a Borough were organisations are particularly active (10.3%) with a small minority working nationally as well (6.9%).
Table 5: Area of operation
Area of operation Percent Count
All London Boroughs 79.3% 23
Tower Hamlets 10.3% 3
Nationally 6.9% 2
Barnet and surrounding Boroughs 3.4% 1
Southeast London Boroughs 3.4% 1
Barking & Dagenham 3.4% 1
Camden 3.4% 1
Hackney 3.4% 1
Lambeth 3.4% 1
Lewisham 3.4% 1
Newham 3.4% 1
Redbridge 3.4% 1
Southwark 3.4% 1
Waltham Forest 3.4% 1
7%
87%
6%
Co-operative
Company limited by guarantee Other social enterprise Registered charity Other
15
Table 6 shows that most organisations operate with a small number of full and part time staff and a larger number of volunteers; 21 organisations employ between 0-5 full time staff and 20 employ 0-5 part time staff and only 5 organisations have over 31 volunteers.
Table 6: Number of staff
Type of Staff Number of staff
0-2 3-5 6-10 11-30 Over 30
Volunteers 0 5 6 9 5
Part-time 10 10 6 0 0
Full-time 11 10 6 2 0
Sources of funding for BAN member organisations are varied. Most rely on multiple sources ranging from Grant Making Trusts (93.5%), donations (71%) and from the Local authority (48.4%). Other funding sources include, fundraising income from rental and other charities. (See Fig. 2)
Figure 2: Funding sources
One third of BAN member organisations have an annual turnover of £100-£200k (10), and most organisations remain under this threshold with only 2 organisations with an annual turnover over
£600k. (See Fig. 3)
All organisations provide face to face advice and most provide telephone advice. Volunteering is a large part of the service they provide (79%) as are referrals (72%) and legal advice and information (72%). Only 7% provide ‘Women’s Services’ and ‘IT classes’. Other services provided include:
children’s services, counselling and specific health services.
71%
9.7% 12.9%
48.4%
32.3%
12.9%
93.5%
16.1%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
16 Figure 3: Annual turnover 2012
Figure 4: Type of service provided
When asked about the organisation’s main areas of work, a large majority stated: providing help with welfare benefits (82.8%), immigration and asylum issues (72.4%) and housing (69%). Just over half the organisations stated they worked around education, employment and health. Just under half stated they worked around domestic violennce (48.3%). Other areas of work stated included:
providing bilingual services, a nursery, specialist Debt advice and a library/community archiving project.
1
4
10 7
1
5 2
under £50k
£50k-£100k
£100k-£200k
£200k-£300k
£300k-£400k
£500k-£600k over £600k
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0%
100%
90%
41%
34%
41%
59%
69%
38%
72%
24%
69%
72%
69%
79%
21%
7%
7%
24%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 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
17
Table 7: What are the main areas in which your organisation works?
Response Percent Count
Welfare benefits 82.8% 24
Immigration & Asylum 72.4% 21
Housing 69.0% 20
Education 55.2% 16
Employment 55.2% 16
Health 51.7% 15
Domestic violence 48.3% 14
Family support 48.3% 14
Training 48.3% 14
Racism, equality & discrimination 41.4% 12
Culture/Arts 31.0% 9
Social Care 27.6% 8
Sports 6.9% 2
Other 10.3% 3
When asked what organisations members refer their clients to, the majority stated a law centre or legal service (93.1%). A testament to the strength of BAN and the trust that members have for each other is highlighted by the fact that 82.8% refer their clients to other BAN members. Other referrals include to: any specialist organisation dealing with immigration and asylum, refugee advice agencies, ESOL providers and health trainers.
Table 8: Referrals
Response
Percent Count
Law Centre/Legal Service 93.1% 27
Other BAN members 82.8% 24
Charity 82.8% 24
Local authority 69.0% 20
Health service 69.0% 20
CAB 65.5% 19
Private solicitor 58.6% 17
NHS 51.7% 15
Further Education 48.3% 14
Government 31.0% 9
Schools 27.6% 8
Other 10.3% 3
The beneficiaries of services provided by BAN member organisations are varied. As expected the majority are black and minority ethnic, refugees and asylum seekers. Within this group some organisations cater specifically to cultural/ethnic groups such as Eastern Europeans and Armenians.
Organisations see more women (58.6%) than men (37.9%); more specifically: Asian women and Latin American migrant women. Homeless people and the elderly are also large client groups.
Organisations also specified that they deal with people with language difficulties across the groups
18
listed in Table 9. Some also stated their beneficiaries to be statutory and non statutory organisations serving the various groups listed.
Table 9: Main clients/users/beneficiaries
Response
Percent Count
People from Black and Minority Ethnic communities 93.1% 27
Asylum seekers 62.1% 18
Refugees 62.1% 18
Women 58.6% 17
Homeless people 44.8% 13
Older people (60+) 41.4% 12
Unemployed people 41.4% 12
Men 37.9% 11
Physically disabled people 31.0% 9
People with mental health needs 31.0% 9
People with a particular financial need (including poverty) 31.0% 9
Young people (aged 16-24) 31.0% 9
The general public/everyone 24.1% 7
Victims of crime and their families 24.1% 7
Carers 20.7% 6
Children (aged 15 and under) 20.7% 6
Lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender people 20.7% 6
Other voluntary or third sector organisations 17.2% 5
People with learning difficulties 17.2% 5
Offenders, ex-offenders and their families 10.3% 3
People with addition problems (e.g. alcohol, drugs) 10.3% 3
People from a specific religious community 6.9% 2
Local authority 6.9% 2
19
3.3 BAN Activities & Services
The majority of organisations who have participated in a BAN activity found the activity very useful.
Activities cited as useful include: networking and sharing information, joint campaigning, advice on specific areas, providing references to funders, obtaining consortium funding and fundraising and other developmental news from the sector.
Table 10: Participation in BAN activities & usefulness
Not useful = 0
The ability to follow things up with colleagues via email or phone was cited as one of the most useful activities for BAN members.
Nearly a third of members found training organised through BAN very useful and feel BAN is good at using the existing capacity and expertise of member organisations. Training around immigration issues, raising local issues and tackling Local Authorities, and workshops with a number of external experts/speakers were cited as good examples.
Some members feel that BAN has a particularly strong ethos of participation and unity.
“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”.
This is reflected in collective lobbying and protest activities and consultations work cited by BAN members as another useful BAN related activity; particularly the ability to react to emerging issues, for example the London riots in 2012.
“...one of the things that we have done really well is collectively come together and lobby counsellors and also put in consultation reports collectively.”
14 13
16
8 4
9
6 1
1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Attended a BAN meeting Attended an event or training for BAN members
Received email communication from BAN
Very useful Useful Not sure
20
“...one of the factors, or occurrences you know that is running through the teams, you know lobbying and campaigning work but decided by external pressures rather than decided by ourselves.”
Although 82.8% of members refer their users to other BAN members (see Table 8), this process was seen by some members as in need of improvement and more structure,
“ At the beginning especially there was a good effort and some basis was established for the referrals and even though referrals do not take in a very structured way we know that we are there for each other.”
Members gave specific feedback on the following BAN activities:
Steering Group & meetings - There were mixed reactions towards BAN meetings and 21% are unsure how useful BAN meetings are. Some organisations are unable to attend meetings because of a lack of time and resources. Others because:
“...the meetings are held, you know, in different places each time and I've tried to attend those which are nearer to us.”
There were some issues raised around how the Steering Committee operates and the impact this has on members attending meetings.
Originally BAN operated with separate steering groups for funded and non-funded members. After some internal discussions around the effectiveness of two steering groups, to avoid confusion, save time and to help prepare for the next London Councils commissioning, there was a general consensus to merge the two. BAN currently operates with a single Steering Committee that has the interests of both the remaining funded groups and non-funded groups. Overall this is seen as a positive thing, in particular, it is democratically elected hence legitimate, it is seen as, “a very very participatory group” and “a very functional group.”
Members feel the work done by the committee has helped them to improve their organisations capacity and workload. Recognition of other successful initiatives implemented by the steering group included:
• organised training
• tried to 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
There is concern that more could be done by the steering group in terms of policy, campaigning and development work for non-funded groups.
21
“...even though there wasn't tensions, as such, between funded and unfunded groups, there was confusion.”
There is a small concern around the sustainability of BAN if there begins to be an imbalance between vocal and more silent members.
“because it's a large group and there and vocal kind of members of group and there are silent members of group so I think that kind of, as long its all-inclusive and people can voice their kind of opinion... I think you need to keep an eye on the fact that it needs to be inclusive really participatory rather than kind of domineering by some members.”
Some members are concerned about poor attendance and a lack of participation in meetings that could slow down some processes.
“...this wish to get everybody involved was so, so strong that it will mean that things might happen a bit slower than they normally happen.”
“...the Steering Groups needed capacity on the part of organisations too.”
Overall, nearly 80% of members are happy with the current governance of BAN and 3% are not.
Accreditation – Members were happy that BAN enabled them to gain accreditation; Table 11 shows the quality assurance accreditations held by BAN members, 52% of whom received BAN support in achieving a quality accreditation.
Table 11: Quality Assurance Accreditation held Response
Percent Count
Advice Quality Standard (AQS) 72.4% 20
Investors in People 27.6% 8
OISC 20.7% 6
Matrix 10.3% 3
PQASSO 10.3% 3
LSC Specialist Quality mark status 6.9% 2
SQM 6.9% 2
NAVCA 3.4% 1
‘lexcel’ 3.4% 1
‘Investors in Volunteers’ 3.4% 1
‘General Quality Mark’ 3.4% 1
None 6.9% 2
Quarterly Monitoring Return (QMR) - Each funded BAN member is required to complete a quarterly monitoring return (QMR) co-ordinated by AdviceUK to send to London Councils. This is made up of the following sections: A Beneficiary Data; B Referrals and Forums; C Beneficiary Feedback; D Tracking; E Workshops/ Seminars; F Equalities Data; G Borough Breakdown; H Progress;
I Variance; J Partnership; K Staff; L Quality.
22
On average most organisations completed the QMR on time. However some funded members criticised this form and felt it, “should be more reflective of the services provided”. Although most were able to provide all the information requested, some felt it was not a useful exercise, nor easy to complete.
Organisations were asked about the services they had received through the BAN network; Table 12 shows how useful they found these services. Member organisations rate the overall quality of services received through BAN as ‘very good’ (44%) or ‘good’ (39%), and 18.5% as ‘neither good nor poor’. Stronger areas are: arranging training, supporting members with campaigns and one-to-one development support. Areas that could be developed further include engagement with policy &
strategy and fundraising support. Other services that members’ deemed to be useful included:
receiving employment law advice, networking, arranging for insurance cover; partnership development locally with other BMER groups; help with writing policies and volunteers training.
Table 12: Support & advice quality
Very useful Useful Not sure
% Count % Count % Count
Arranging training 68.8% 11 25% 4 6.3% 1
Support with campaigns e.g. Model letters 50% 9 44.4% 8 5.6% 1
1:1 development support 50% 7 35.7% 5 14.3% 2
Engagement with policy/strategy 37.5% 6 56.3% 9 6.3% 1
Fundraising support 42.9% 6 35.7% 5 21.4% 3
Business planning 50% 3 33.3% 2 16.7% 1
Other support/advice/activity 54.5% 6 36.4% 4 9.1% 1
One of the aims of BAN is to provide a voice for the BME-led advice sector in London and to influence policy and decision-making where it affects the work of the sector. Members that have been involved in policy work feel it has been beneficial to their organisation. Examples of BAN policy work include:
• BAN response to the policy review paper on the Equality Act 20107
• Consultation on the National Lottery Shares8
• Closure of Refugee Migrant Justice9
• London Councils commissioning priorities 2011-201510
• BAN response to the UKBA consultation on oversight of the immigration advice sector11
7http://www.advisercpd.org.uk/bmeadvicenetwork/docs/BAN%20response%20to%20the%20policy%20review
%20paper%20on%20the%20Equality%20Act%202010.pdf
8http://www.advisercpd.org.uk/bmeadvicenetwork/docs/Consultation%20on%20the%20National%20Lottery
%20Shares.pdf
9http://www.advisercpd.org.uk/bmeadvicenetwork/docs/Closure%20of%20Refugee%20%20Migrant%20Justic e.pdf
10http://www.advisercpd.org.uk/bmeadvicenetwork/docs/London%20Councils%20commissioning%20prioritie s%202011-2015.pdf
11http://www.advisercpd.org.uk/bmeadvicenetwork/docs/BAN%20response%20to%20the%20UKBA%20consu ltation%20on%20oversight%20of%20the%20immigration%20advice%20sector.pdf
23
3.4 Benefits to Organisations
There was a very positive response when members were asked to what extent they had experienced the benefits listed in Fig. 5. The top three benefits to being a member of BAN are: increased networking, greater collaborative working and greater representation in forums, networks and local strategic partnerships. Benefits that are ‘not at all’ experienced include: an increased awareness of developments in the sector (specified under ‘Other’). Benefits stated were generic across the network and there are no differences between funded and non-funded members.
Figure 5: Benefits as a result of BAN support/funding
Members describe a number of benefits that fall under these categories such as learning about different organisations in an area, broadening their outlook and client base, the availability of specialist help from other BAN members, raising awareness and building personal relationships.
They also state BAN has enabled a unique Pan-London network with added benefits,
“We know what is happening, we know who the main providers are around London...we have the basis now to identify common needs and issues...”
“...together we are better than separated because we are the voice for every man and children in London... we have this potential for our customers, if used in a reactive way, can be so powerful...it does legitimise the sector by bringing us together.”
Members also talk about the benefits of a having a stronger community voice through BAN and giving legitimacy to the work of the organisation and wider BMER agenda.
7 8
12 10 9 8 7
12 8 8
5 5
9 9 7 7 6
11 9 8 1
2 4
3 3 2 4 2
3 3 5
3 2
1 2
3 3
1 1
4 4
2 2 4
3 4
2 3
2 4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Achieved a quality assurance accreditation Better monitoring and evaluation Enabled collaborative working Greater representation in forums and …
Improved access to funding Improved access to resources Increased capacity building Increased networking Participating in training courses Strong basis to develop services Other
A great deal A lot Somewhat A little bit Not at all
24
Sharing of knowledge and best practice and being able to influence locally was also cited as a strong benefit,
“The other thing that is really useful is that you actually get an insight into different communities, I mean people have done presentations around the Turkish communities and Asian communities ... it gave you a bit of insight into the actual specific issues that are facing that particular community group so again there is a level of awareness raising amongst us as well in terms of the specialists that we bring and I think that has been really useful.”
“We learn from each other and we actually push that learning or contribute that learning to the local advice forums...so we have that kind of local influence as well.”
Organisations funded through BAN describe having a greater capacity to engage in the local framework and have more proactive strategies for raising awareness of specific BMER communities,
“Other benefits also meant that the issues, the needs of the community kept in touch with the local strategies, local policies that were evolving and that had to be informed. So, both in terms of our interaction with the statutory bodies of Hackney, Haringey and Islington; we were also able to join in the local forums to discuss the experience of the work, to work with other local providers so that the outcomes we achieve are enhanced and also to identify ways we can work together; both with each other but with the local statutory provider.”
One member cited that BAN had provided an opportunity to problem solve and troubleshoot issues faced by the organisation. Another member even compares these collaborative benefits to a self help group,
“I think sharing best practice but also sharing their problems...”
“Receiving this funding and being a member of BAN, we create this kind of self help group...where you will provide support to all the users...which is amazing.”
Having access to speakers at meetings and other BMER organisations was found to be extremely beneficial to some in planning strategies to a common problem,
“It was also the access to the speakers at the meetings which was very useful because you were able to keep up-to-date with certain things that otherwise you wouldn't know. But also the access to these network of voluntary organisations, working with other ethnic minorities that we wouldn't have access to and they're facing very, very similar problems to us so they should be able to co-ordinate things and to learn from the practice from different organisations and to have a joint answer to certain issues…”
Members feel very strongly about the benefits of collaborative working within BAN. Some organisations have already established relationships and a history of working together prior to BAN;
which has formalised these relationships. Most organisations have also worked with AdviceUK.
25
“We were also involved with something called the renewal SRB6 project which was a West London project for over five years which again was a capacitive building project for, you know, RCOs so there’s a history of working together with a lot of BAN members before BAN was kind-of formalised under the auspices of Advice UK …”
“… and an awful lot of us were members of Advice UK and had worked with Advice UK anyway in terms of developing our policies and procedures and benefits trainings... So BAN was kind-of an organic growth under that experience. It wasn't just simply an opportunistic funding opportunity to get together and say let's do this, so even though it might appear that it was, but it wasn't.”
The idea that BAN is an organic growth out of existing relationships has created a strong bond between organisations happy to work together. As described earlier 83% of referrals are to other BAN members.
“That’s one of the strengths in here and I think I'd quite happily, confidentially refer clients to every single organisation here and be happy that they will get professional service and I think that to me is very reassuring and I can then be sure clients are happy.”
As well as collaborative benefits, members describe BAN as providing them with a structure and tools to deliver a service more effectively and an enhanced reputation amongst the local BMER community,
“Advice capacity remains through the trainings, through the support, through all the quality assurance, all this establishing advice mechanisms, procedures; it was also very helpful and contributed in its own way and improved the quality we provide and it ensured in general for us to be known within the Turkish/Kurdish community as an advice provider so much so that our services still are up taken through word of mouth more than through anything else which goes to show the London Councils and BAN funding enabled on the long term.”
Organisations see BAN as a successful networking model and for some of the smaller organisations the only way forward in a climate of heavy competition for funding and funding cuts.
“This is what going on in the charitable sector. The days are gone when, for example, you had organisations just working on their own. That's really gone. Because funders are nowadays, you know, they prefer partnership working. So that really is where we're all heading and this is what we continually try to do, try to see if we become members of various networks and so on.”
As a result of services received through BAN the skills, knowledge and confidence of staff and volunteers has grown.
“I think I personally have got things out of BAN probably nobody else has, just because I was so ill experienced, in every way...I wish to hide away for a very long time, so to go into a small community organisation like that where you're not placed in a team to learn from you
26
are trying to do it by going into external training and all of that stuff you know and I've learnt loads and loads just from coming here, also from formal trainings, but also just from hearing people talk to each other”.
Benefits to external organisations
The influence of BAN can be seen through its work with external organisations. Their perception of the BAN partnership and the organisations that are part of it are extremely positive. BAN has also been able to advise and inform organisations about specific BMER issues and influence future thinking.
LCVS
The LCVS have experience of BAN through the Voluntary Sector Forum and managed the network for organisations, providing occasional support, development of bids to London Councils and observe meetings.
“It's a long relationship and I've always been extremely impressed by them. I liked the way it was incredibly democratic, I felt and I liked the way they came together, stand out and go about things, deliberated. I was impressed by, not only by the chair but by members. It's a big network I think that was a difficult thing to have managed, to be able to engage so many people. All the meetings were always incredibly busy and that was always
encouraging...they were always well attended, lots of people there, lots of engagement, lots of passion, commitment, you know, great group of people and from a hugely diverse range of organisations.” LCVS
“I have always been very impressed by them. By the way they carry out their business in a really democratic, deliberative, thoughtful, thoughtful way, but also you know there is a huge amount of expertise from very diverse range of people...I think it's probably the unique grouping that, I've always been very impressed by.” LCVS
Stonewall Housing
Stonewall Housing submitted a joint bid with AdviceUK to the ‘Awards for All Programme’ under the Big Lottery and was successful; it helped BAN members improve their work with LGBT people. In 2010 Stonewall provided free training and consultancy services for BAN members. Out of this Stonewall Housing offered five organisations within BAN free consultancy services to help organisations review their policies and procedures. Stonewall felt its experience with BAN was hugely beneficial,
“So all of that experience was fantastic for us because we also learnt a lot about refugees, asylum seekers and specifically we looked at some of our practices and policies, to think about how we can be more welcoming to refugees. We then took part in a research project with refugees around the same time so it tied in very nicely for us, we benefited a lot from the BAN members to help us, to make that research project a success. So it started 2010 and we are still discussing actions from that now in 2013...” Bob Green, Stonewall Housing
27
Stonewall have also started a project with funding from ‘Trust for London’ that has improved relationships between BMER services and LGBT services. They have a number of BMER network members on a regular basis with the aim to improve relations between staff and boards and improve awareness. They have introduces mystery shopping by LGBT refugees and visits from community researchers to help improve their practices.
“So all of that sort of stemmed from our work with BAN and it's just been a really great experience, which is why in last year we tried to go to London Councils to put in a joint bid to provide housing advice within London, unfortunately the BAN network wasn't successful but we have met with them on a couple of occasions since and even though they haven't been successful and we have, we are trying to improve the referral system between us and them, we are trying to see how we can work a partnership in the future...I think they would have a really good impact on BMER communities within London.” Bob Green, Stonewall Housing
3.5 Benefits to Service Users
When asked to rate the benefits of BAN funded activity on service users (as listed in Fig 6) most were extremely positive. Overall member organisations strongly agree that users have become more aware of their rights; they are more able to access entitlements and are more aware of local services. There is more ambivalence towards the idea that users have become more empowered, cohesive and forthcoming. Other benefits include: users have enjoyed family reunion, have gained access to the labour market and to higher education are more self sufficient and autonomous and less poor.
Figure 6: ‘As a result of BAN funded activity would you say your users are more...’
17 16
17 13 12
14
3 4
4 3 4
3
3 4
4 5
6 7
1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Able to access entitlements Aware of local services Aware of their rights Cohesive Forthcoming Empowered
Strongly Agree Agree
Neither agree nor disagree Strongly disagree
28
For most organisations’ funding received through BAN was for a core service they provide to the BMER community.
“Basically, our most in demand service is the service that BAN was funding...”
“We received half a salary for an advisor. That was the only funding for the advice for the centre and without it, the centre was not able to provide the very much needed service.”
Many of these core services did not exist for some communities prior to BAN funding,
“I think it was us and only two other organisations in the community that were providing a quality assured service and apart from us, I don't think there was a general help immigration service either. So the fact that both the service continued and continued in a way that was free for the community was very good...”
Universal credit coupled with legal aid cuts is starting to have an impact on BMER communities in London as more people are facing homelessness. As a result of BAN funding organisations said they were able to see more clients and place more homeless clients (or those in danger of becoming homeless) into accommodation. Members feel BAN funding has enabled organisations to support users who have been affected by cuts in Legal Aid or are unable to navigate through the strict eligibility criteria and as a result may lose out.
Both funded and non-funded members agree that they feel part of a unique structure and as a result their users experience more benefits than if they were accessing other more ‘mainstream’ advice services such as the Local Authority or CAB. In particular, funded members feel that due to the changes in advice service commissioning they are among the last organisations to be able to impact their users in a way that more mainstream services are not,
“not only are we organisations that are really entrenched and busy and active in terms of advice politics but I think in one respect we represent the last line of organisations that were advice funded and so I suppose our effects and our influence is also to be measured in terms of what would have happened if we weren’t in that period...”
The impact and benefits of the BAN model on service users is perceived to be much greater than mainstream models,
“We actually share the life journey with the people of our community because once they arrive in this country, we hold their hand throughout the course of their whole lives and from the initial assistance we provide in terms of the reception, settlement, integration and so forth… So, yes we give advice but we give them advice first of all because that's what they need, but we also try and address holistically the other multiple needs that they have throughout the course of their stay in this country. So we've got - so it's not as if we're helping just one generation of BMER people who arrive in this country, we're also helping the second and third generation…So, you know as I said, it's a life journey that we provide or assistance throughout their life journey that we provide as BME organisations because we are part of them, they are part of us…”
29
This whole person approach is echoed in case studies provided by organisations as examples of where users have “fallen through gaps in mainstream services”, and where BAN member organisations have been able to “hold their hand” and help them (see Appendix).
3.6 The Future of BAN
There is a strong feeling among organisations that without BAN, their ability to access similar help would be limited (61%). For some it would be with difficulty (23%) and 8% would not be able to access similar help at all.
Fig 7: To what extent would you be able to access similar help/assistance if BAN did not exist?
If BAN did not exist some organisations feel that the impact of a having a collective identity would be lost,
“I think we would be working in Silos, we've got more power collectively and I think that is one of the really key things about BAN.”
“Also campaigning it’s much stronger if 19 or 42 organisations are putting their name to it and that way we can affect some sort of change.”
Although many organisations within BAN are part of other networks, forums and strategic partnerships, some members feel that they are included in these to ‘tick a box’. BAN somehow feels more empowering to those organisations, this is turn impacts the local community.
“...we go to so many meetings, we go to so many forums, we go to policy forums, we go to so many others but there we are just a member of that forum and we are just ticking a box that the forum is kind of inclusive for organisations for example because it's so, you know some of them are so dominant and so it’s really difficult to raise something on your own, whereas here it's a collective voice we have...”
4%
4%
61%
23%
8%
Very easily Quite easily A limited amount With difficulty Not at all
30
“...in local forums we are quite effective because we are encouraged by this forum to be more effective so by having this we are more effective in other groups and forums that we attend not just to be a tick box in those forums but actually trying to kind of change the agenda of the communities that we are working for.”
There are strong concerns that if BAN did not exist the investment of time and resources and work done to date would be set back and many organisations may have to start from scratch. It also becomes harder to demonstrate the long term impact of initiatives,
“We are able to help because we have what we call self-helps groups and groups of youngsters that have already learnt so much that they can operate on a cascade approach in terms of work...but with the changes we have to start to work from scratch again.”
“...the sort of work that is done does have that greater impact being used to that wider context rather than the slightly more narrow sense and it's a very difficult thing to analyse as it also takes 2, 3,4,5,6 years sometimes to oversee that sort of difference and nobody funds you over that period of time for that work so it's very difficult to demonstrate”
“BAN is the product of a lengthy experience of community work responding to the vital needs and issues of BMER communities; it should continue to ensure that this experience and practice of working together is not lost and so that the work started in the previous period is taken to its natural conclusion”
On the other hand, a testament of the strength of relationships between member organisations is the suggestion that members would continue to work together is BAN did not exist.
“Our communities share similar problems in terms of accessing statutory services and struggling to access service in general hence they value our own knowledge and expertise … and so we will be here, even after - I mean, BAN is just like one name, one model in this particular time. Maybe in five years time, we'll be calling it something else… but it'll still be the same groups of people, it'll still be the same communities working together...as I said five years ago we were called something else and maybe, you know, five years later we'll be called something else but the groups will still be hopefully still around to continue working together.”
There are mixed reactions to the circumstances in which current members will continue to be a part of BAN. Although the majority feel they will continue in any case just over half feel they would only continue if specific funding were attached.
31
Figure 8: Do you intend to continue being a member of BAN in the future?
Strongly disagree = 0
Future BAN membership - ‘I will continue in any case’
Members cite a number of reasons why they would continue to be a member of BAN regardless if funding is attached. These include:
• cohesiveness of the group;
• the group is well attended;
• positivity of members;
• diversity of the group;
• the group’s pan London focus;
• support of AdviceUK.
“BAN has helped us to access funding in our "most in demand" programme but it also has helped us to get together with other ethnic minorities that share similar issues and concerns.”
“This is an amazing attendance quite frankly any sort of forum to get sort of 16, 17 people where there is no funding or anything to attract people to a meeting is really quite amazing”
“...the other thing that is different here to anywhere else that I have come across I was amazed at how positive everybody was to working with each other, at no stage has anybody get up and got up and walked out that door, slammed the table or hit anybody, there were no fights, it's done, it was incredible”.
“...here you've got one of the most diverse groups of people in every sort of different community and they've all come together and looked at how we can make this work, elsewhere it's about me, me, me, my organisation - not here and you know to me it's a totally different concept”
11 16
5
10
4
1
1
1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
If specific funding is attached I will continue in any case
Strongly Agree Agree
Neither agree nor disagree Disagree
