Supporting a Stronger Civil Society, an Office for Civil Society consultation on improving
support for frontline civil society organisations
A submission on behalf of the Mentoring and Befriending Foundation
About the Mentoring and Befriending Foundation (MBF)
MBF is a national charity that encourages the growth and development of mentoring and
befriending programmes and projects throughout England. We do this by providing a source of
expert guidance, inspiring excellence and creating a force for change
Our vision is of a society where mentoring and befriending can empower all people to reach
their full potential. Our mission is to support the expansion of quality mentoring and befriending
provision across all sectors. We promote voluntary regulation of the sector through our quality
standard the Approved Provider Standard, which provides a benchmark for safe and effective
practice.
Whilst the responses in the main represent the views of MBF, we have also taken into account
the views of mentoring and befriending projects and MBF members via surveys and focus group
activities.
Easier to access advice and support online
Consultation Question 1: How can online services to frontline groups be improved?
Our survey feedback indicates that projects rely heavily on the internet as a source of support
and information, with around 90% indicating that they were “confident and experienced
computer users” with a similar percentage indicating that they “use the internet to access most
of the important information I need at work”. Projects use many different sources of on line
information. However, access to these is limited by 1) frontline groups knowing what they need
and 2) where to find it.
There are information requirements common to all civil society groups, for instance, relating to
good governance, volunteer management, etc. However, respondents to MBF’s survey said
they do not use a single source of support for their work. Over 95% stated that they would use
a variety of sources to get the information they relating to the work of their project. There is a
recognition that a range of information is available and that this can come from a range of
organisations. This finding is reinforced in that over 75% of those surveyed stated that they
were members of more than one organisation related to their work – underlining the importance
of partnership and joint working.
Another factor which militates against the streamlining of information provision is that many
infrastructure organisations already provide this as a key service to their members. Certainly
the most important service valued by projects in terms of national infrastructure support was the
“provision of specialist advice and guidance in a range of ways”.
1
Specific feedback from our recent surveys pinpoints the following as particularly welcome:
-
“the specialist volunteering role in mentoring and befriending relationships benefits
immensely from support of a dedicated umbrella body with expertise in the field”
“MBF expertise and experience offered by its regional and national staff has been crucial
in ensuring the success of thousands of mentoring and befriending schemes nationwide”
“ it’s useful to have a place to check out questions and get additional support”
“MBF is invaluable in identifying and closing gaps in reporting and increasing our
understanding of and response to project sustainability”
“by its support for small, voluntary and community based orgs, MBF is opening up public
services away from institutional management and enable local projects help to deliver at
grassroots level, often to unreached communities.”
New information needs
New areas of information, advice and guidance that projects would like included: an advice help
line; sources of funding; marketing; updating on latest developments, training and safeguarding;
live contact between orgs and staff; specialist areas like autism spectrum disorders.
There are also other types of public data, not in the domain of civil society resource provision,
which help groups grow the capacity and skills to engage more in the commissioning process
and are currently hard to know where to find, for instance, evidential data such as statistics,
alternative costings of statutory services, previous evaluation and research. For instance our
recent Big Society workshop identified a support need for signposting to research on existing
costs of services in order to demonstrate comparative cost benefit savings in relation to
mentoring and befriending.
In addition, organisations need support in the understanding and implementation of the ideas in
the Modernising Commissioning Green Paper, e.g. understanding payment by results
processes, Social Impact Bonds, adapting to an environment where citizens are commissioning
their own services. This would save infrastructure organizations from duplicating efforts to
develop new basic information and allow them to focus on specialized support for the groups
they represent.
The proposed Contracts Finder would also be a very useful aid, even more so if it works to help
projects through often complicated processes of electronic tender portals now used by many
public sector commissioning bodies.
New methods of online provision
Over 90% of respondents to our survey on membership stated that they were keen to be in
contact (and to share ideas and concerns) with others in the same area of work in order to be
better placed to undertake contracts. As part of its plans for a refreshed website, MBF has
incorporated capacity for online-forums which enable a two-way communication between
mentoring and befriending projects and networks. We have also developed the capacity to
2
tailor and target communications through technology such as Customer Relations Management
databases and online good practice banks. These form directories where people can directly
share their own good practice.
Accessing wider sources of support
Consultation Question 2: What can Government do to forge more effective links and
transfer of skills between small civil society organisations and businesses or larger
charities?
One of the ways in which links can be forged and skills transferred between civil society
organizations is through mentoring.
The Mentoring and Befriending Foundation is developing a 6 month pilot peer mentoring
programme in the North West region for leaders/senior managers of civil society organisations
who will be offered the chance to be matched with another leader/senior manager a business,
larger charity, co-operative or social enterprise according to the specific area of expertise or
experience they want to tap into. We will be working in partnership with a range of
organisations through their HR/CR department to recruit mentors with a wide range of skills,
expertise and experience.
MBF will be bringing its experience of effective project management, quality standards and
programme evaluation to ensure that the programme is outcome driven. The outcomes that we
would expect to see include improved business/entrepreneurial skills, increased resilience to
deal with and flourish in these difficult times, increasing the capacity for the private sector to
contribute to local social capital and potentially increased partnership across the sectors.
We hope that the Government will support MBF in the roll out of a national mentoring service for
civil society professionals, based on the evidence gained from our North West region pilot
stage. Specific government departments could lead by example and work with third sector
partners in mutually beneficial areas.
MBF as a national organisation would be ideally placed to deliver a national programme to
support a formalised peer-mentoring programme.
Consultation Question 3: How could brokerage of pro bono support be improved?
Developing centralized co-ordination of information and introduction of offers of professional
expertise to groups who need this is always useful, although to make this work both sides need
to understand the wide range and scope of both help offered and the need required. The
process needs to be mutually beneficial and supported otherwise it doesn’t work. In order to
make real improvements investigations should take place into the different ways in which probono support can be delivered and what works and what doesn’t.
3
Recently MBF has engaged with Pro Bono Economics, which is a useful brokerage organisation
and supportive in terms of facilitating shared understanding of the particular boundaries, focus
for specialist professional support and protocols in terms of IP, confidentiality etc. This is an
exemplar template which could be replicated in other specialized pro bono brokerage service.
EIA Question B: Are there any barriers that may prevent certain frontline groups from
accessing pro bono support?
MBF feels barriers are often due to a perception and confidence within grassroots groups, as
well as a lack of information about how to access opportunities. The 2010 Fundraising
Corporate Partnership Survey produced by Civil Society showed that relatively small charities
lack the resources to pitch and manage longer run partnerships. They also do not have the
variety of activities such as payroll giving, volunteering, employee fundraising activity or relevant
marketing and PR opportunities to make a partnership attractive to a corporation.
In terms of current access to brokerage, we would be interested in any support that helps
encourage more Trustees with useful additional skills for small community groups.
EIA Question C: How could the private sector be encouraged to offer pro bono support to
a wide range of civil society groups?
The 2010 Fundraising Corporate Partnership Survey produced by Civil Society showed that
corporations tend to focus on the fundraising element of the partnership as a measure of
success rather than other activities such as pro bono and volunteering, there is an opportunity
to work with corporations on this in today’s economic climate in terms of manpower, not cash
sponsorship. They measure success on cash donated or raised, not through volunteering or
pro bono hours.
Feedback from projects indicated that they want MBF to promote a clear understanding of the
benefits of pro bono support such as Employee Supported Volunteering(ESV) because they see
positive potential in its contribution specifically because of the reciprocal nature of mentoring
and befriending relationships. Projects see a specific role for government to focus on the
benefits for business as well as the benefits to civil society groups and promote volunteering in
different types of civil society groups, including more challenging areas of care. Real life
examples could be used to showcase how the transfer of skill from one environment to another
is achieved and what value this brings. Regional road shows could then be employed to
demonstrate not only the benefits but how the private sector could get involved.
At present MBF are measuring the impact that ESV in the mentoring and befriending sector has
on employee, employer and project. We are gathering feedback from all parties involved in ESV
4
to discover the barriers and the success factors of the private sector working with civil society
groups.
In MBF’s experience, it is important that the private sector are involved from the beginning and
buy into what and why they are supporting civil society groups. An example of this is Harris
Cartier LLP who support both financial and on a pro-bono basis a civil society group called Back
Up Trust. The reason this partnership works is shared values and business focus. Back Up
Trust support those with spinal cord injuries and Harries Cartier LLP legally represent those that
have been affected by long term injuries.
To make this work effectively and fairly, projects see a need for an intermediary role with a
range of options for the private sector to get involved depending on what they feel they can
offer. Such a role could offer support such as recruitment, training, ongoing support and
supervision and managing networks.
Direct support to build the skills of frontline organisations
Consultation Question 4: What types of support (if any) do organisations need to ensure
the services they offer become more resilient?
The organisations we work with identified a need for support in the following areas to help them
become more resilient:
-
new models of delivery and service innovation
providing services on behalf of the public sector
understanding cost benefits (see Emma’s point below)
becoming more entrepreneurial e.g. selling goods and services, diversifying fundraising
activities
partnership working e.g. consortium building
responding to the personalisation agenda
New models of delivery and service innovation
Projects look to MBF to provide the networking and co-ordination to facilitate sharing of new
ideas, specialist support in setting up new projects, and brokering peer management support
between projects. In addition they see an important and continuing role for MBF in supporting
the role of quality standards, good practice such as advocating paid management and
supervision of volunteers, and promoting exemplar projects in new and innovative settings.
Providing services on behalf of the public sector
Many projects continue to be concerned about barriers to future volunteering if they provide
services on behalf of the public sector, for instance fears that the nature of volunteering and
public spirit could change, and that volunteering becomes too onerous for people to participate
and therefore potentially excludes certain sectors of society. They were also concerned that
5
outcomes set by commissioners are achievable and outcome measurements should be
proportionate to resources.
Understanding cost benefits
Civil society groups need support to enable them to effectively evidence the savings they are
making to the public purse. Models and frameworks need to be developed for specific sectors
such as mentoring and befriending to ensure that they can robustly demonstrate the contribution
that they are making. MBF have developed an outcomes toolkit and are also working to
develop a cost benefit model. As a national infrastructure body MBF are well placed to
disseminate learning and good practice through a mixture of means such as workshops,
toolkits, online forums and networks.
Becoming more entrepreneurial e.g. selling goods and services, diversifying fundraising
activities
If the creativity, flexibility and focus for community altruism of civil society groups who wish to
complement rather than deliver public services, is not to be lost, then they need to be supported
to learn about alternative ways of maintaining their charitable characteristics, i.e. alternative
philanthropic sources, the capacity to become self sustainable through sale of goods and
services.
Partnership working
Civil society groups keen to contribute to public service provision identify difficulties in working
together to influence or respond to service design as part of the early stages of the
commissioning process, or management time to initiate and broker consortia/partnerships. They
look to MBF to provide that specialist overview, with its knowledge of where similar schemes are
and ability to bring together networks/consortia which enable closer working between schemes
and with commissioners.
Responding to the personalisation agenda
Projects are also looking to MBF for clear directions for engaging with the personalization
agenda to ensure that the sector can be fully involved. This includes advice on becoming more
person-centred in planning and adapting services, and changing financial systems to respond to
charging for personal needs when appropriate. Projects are also very concerned to understand
the possible contradictions of providing one-to one services to those with personal budgets
where the most highly valued element of their service to the customer is that a volunteer
workforce delivers them, even though such services are not cost free, and are potentially
valuable additions to social care.
In all of these areas, projects regard the existence of a specialist sector leader such as MBF as
invaluable in increasing understanding of and supporting project sustainability in a wide range of
settings through
-
More active peer to peer support provision for individuals and groups.
6
-
The development of partnerships on behalf of projects with regional staff to act as
consortia managers, providing information and encouraging cooperation.
Co-ordinating networking with similar organisations on a local basis
Specialist information on issues such as risk management, specialist training for
volunteers, gaining accreditation via APS
Connecting organisations on the ground with policy makers and as conduit between
funders, commissioners and projects
In conclusion, MBF feels the method of delivery of such support is important and the role of
specialist infrastructure bodies such as MBF remains.
EIA Question D: Are there any support needs or skills that particular types of groups may
find especially difficult to access or develop, which would be appropriate for a bursary
scheme?
Our surveys point to concerns that smaller community projects find, for instance, recruiting
volunteers from the private sector especially difficult. There is also difficulty in such groups
accessing 1) in depth funding expertise to develop sustainable business plans, and 2) trustee
treasurers who can steer projects to understand the process of managing and maintaining
budgets. Projects have identified the risks of inequalities developing both for individuals and
small projects, e.g. smaller groups who are working with the most disadvantaged and vulnerable
and those working with more transient, urban communities. They say there should be advice
and support for smaller groups in addition to the focus on developing larger organisations.
What types of organisations are particularly vulnerable in the current economic climate?
Feedback for projects which we have gathered over the last year suggests that projects provide
prevention or early intervention and stop vulnerable people from requiring acute statutory
support are at high risk of losing their funding, especially as time limited funding comes to an
end and statutory funding is reducing. This is especially the case for those working with more
challenging clients where volunteers may be harder to engage.
Consultation Question 5: What do you think should be the priorities for a bursary fund?
In a recent survey of mentoring and befriending projects, priority support needs were identified
as follows:
-
Specialist advice and guidance on best practice, including quality standards.
Appropriately costed training and development to help organisations to become more
sustainable, and which is relevant and focused to specific sectors so it is worthwhile and
valuable. Projects were anxious to maintain contact with specific sector interest groups
by networking and other access. Training subjects identified related to improving quality,
measuring outcomes and assessing cost benefit.
7
-
Access to appropriate relevant publications and other opportunities and updates to
access new ideas, skills and news of important issues for their work.
Consultation Question 6: How could a bursary fund be delivered fairly?
The administration of such a fund needs to be undertaken on the basis of the recently renewed
Compact between the voluntary sector and government, with clear criteria, transparent decisionmaking and appropriate timings.
EIA Question E: Are there any barriers which may exclude some groups from accessing
bursaries?
Many mentoring and befriending projects are attached to larger organisations and so are
managed as part of a wider portfolio of activity, so may not find it easy to attract bursary funding
in their own right even though they may have very particular and useful outcomes.
Consolidation of Infrastructure
Consultation Question 7: How could consolidation grants help ensure the sustainability
and efficiency of infrastructure services?
Forms of consolidation may be a useful alternative to enable infrastructure organisations to
continue to provide effective services for specialist sectors, rather than facing a significant
reduction in capacity, or actual closure.
Consolidation grants could allow for the extra investment required to ensure staff and Trustees
are involved in important decisions, and that legal advice is available.
We notice that the consultation document concentrates its examples on rationalization between
local infrastructure bodies. Just as local groups need outside support to see the potential for
closer working, so do specialist national bodies such as MBF. Grant investment along these
lines would be useful in order to facilitate knowledge sharing, innovation and improved service
development between national bodies. However, it should not be forgotten that feedback from
frontline organizations that are in daily contact with MBF value its specialist advice and
guidance greatly.
Encouraging better public sector partnerships
Consultation Question 8: Are there ways that expert intervention can support areas,
which are lacking social capital to improve local relationships and develop a stronger
civil society?
The mentoring and befriending sector recognizes the role it has to play in supporting the
development of a stronger civil society, since its projects fundamentally support active
citizenship and community engagement. A major contribution of the sector is the preventative
8
nature of support offered and their ability to complement statutory provision through the
provision of services to many hard to reach and more vulnerable people in society. So the
message from grassroots projects is that the sector itself is proof of the importance of social
capital in action.
Because infrastructure organizations have an overview of either a community or geography of
interest they are in a good position to work with the local public sector by helping to give voice to
the civil society groups and people who use their services. This is essential if people are to find
out or be signposted to the services that are available to them.
It is essential that the arrangements for signposting emerge from partnership and agreement to
ensure that referral patterns provide a good experience for the person being signposted, and
that statutory providers promote, recognize and support quality services. National
infrastructure bodies like MBF have an important role to play in helping the local public sector to
identify quality services by referring them to organizations that achieved their quality standards.
However improved public sector partnerships need to acknowledge the often complementary
strengths of civil society, so whilst they are integrated into the response to community support
from the public sector, their independence is respected as being one of the key reasons why
vulnerable people come to them rather than going to a statutory service.
Better working together necessitates early involvement of communities and civil society groups
in the commissioning process, so that grassroots ideas and energy are taken into account and
more effective activities which would otherwise be missed can be supported, with expert
knowledge, help in kind, seed funding which attracts support from non-statutory sources.
Question 10: Do you have further suggestions or comments on how the Office for Civil
Society can help frontline groups become more efficient and effective?
The paragraph entitled “Final note” describes a process in which infrastructure organisations are
just one of the elements of support for frontline groups. In reality, the frontline groups we
support dip in and out of our services as they undertake the process of start-up, development,
consolidation and sustainability. Contact with them helps our understanding of their needs.
Working alongside projects develops effective reciprocal exchanges of help, whereby we can
support continuous improvement in standards and knowledge, and they can provide us with
evidence to feed to policy makers, and allow us to identify gaps in service where MBF may need
to take the lead in developing new services.
MBF’s recommendation would be that OCS needs to build on the support services that are
already in existence rather than creating duplicate or competing services which undermine
those already in existence and confuse potential users.
December 2010
9