1 / 19

Evaluation of the Black and Minority Ethnic Advice Network (BAN)

Evaluation of the Black and Minority Ethnic Advice Network (BAN). Preeti Kathrecha Social Policy Research Centre Middlesex University. Research Aims. An evaluation of the impact of the BAN partnership, including leadership, operation and effectiveness and Impact on BMER communities in London

zea
Download Presentation

Evaluation of the Black and Minority Ethnic Advice Network (BAN)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Evaluation of theBlack and Minority Ethnic Advice Network (BAN) Preeti Kathrecha Social Policy Research Centre Middlesex University

  2. Research Aims • 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 improvements • An evaluation of the monitoring tools

  3. About BAN • An integrated network of advice services, delivered for and by the people from London's migrant refugee communities. • 40 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 • A unique network

  4. State of BAN funding • 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 for 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.

  5. Member Organisations • Majority established 1980s onwards • 87% Registered Charity, 7% Company limited by guarantee • 79.3% operated across all London boroughs • Most rely on between 2-5 full time staff and between 11-30 volunteers

  6. Funding sources

  7. Areas of work

  8. Types of Services

  9. Referrals

  10. BAN governance • 80% happy with the current governance of BAN • 52% received BAN support in achieving a quality accreditation – 69% AQS, 28% Investors in People 21% OISC • QMR – should be more reflective of the services provided • 21% unsure how useful BAN meetings were

  11. BAN activities • 81% rate overall quality of BAN services as very good or good • Quality of support and advice (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%)

  12. Benefits to organisations

  13. Benefits to users

  14. Perceived Strengths of BAN • Strong collaborative processes • 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” • CAB ‘one stop shop’ Vs ‘hand holding’ life journey approach • Both Pan London and local influence and expertise • BAN model inspires local models

  15. Perceived Weaknesses of BAN • Danger of developing a two tier response between funded and unfunded groups within BAN • Member commitment • Funding complacency • Stronger leadership • Long term vision/strategy Vs reactive approach

  16. If BAN did not exist... • 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%

  17. The future of BAN • 93% agree they would continue membership regardless if specific funding was attached • 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%

  18. How organisations can make a greater impact through BAN

  19. “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 other, 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.”

More Related