state of the sector third - BVSC · of BVSC by Ipsos MORI state of the... 2011-2012 sectorthird. 2 bvsc - state of the third sector ... and allows public sector agencies, donors,

Birmingham Third SectorIntelligence Mapping SurveyA study conducted on behalfof BVSC by Ipsos MORI

state of the...

2011-2012sectorthird

2

bvsc - state of the third sector

Legal notice

© 2012 Ipsos MORI – all rights reserved.

The contents of this report constitute the sole and exclusive property of Ipsos MORI.

Ipsos MORI retains all right, title and interest, including without limitation copyright, in or to any Ipsos MORI trademarks, technologies,methodologies, products, analyses, software and know-how included or arising out of this report or used in connection with the preparation ofthis report. No license under any copyright is hereby granted or implied.

The contents of this report are of a commercially sensitive and confidential nature and intended solely for the review and consideration of theperson or entity to which it is addressed. No other use is permitted and the addressee undertakes not to disclose all or part of this report toany third party (including but not limited, where applicable, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act 2000) without the prior written consentof the Company Secretary of Ipsos MORI.

Introduction 3

Background to BVSC 3

Aims and objectives 3

Methodology - summary 4

Interpreting the results 6

Executive summary 7

Organisational scope and remit 8

Organisational scope 8

Service delivery 10

Quality 13

Quality standards 13

Sources of funding 17

The funding ‘gap’ 19

Cuts to funding and the effects 23

Capacity and support 25

Capacity and resources 25

Key support needs 27

Accessing support 28

Willingness to pay for support services 30

BVSC’s views and conclusions 31

Supplementary profile data 33

Appendix 1: advance letter 34

Appendix 2: topline results 35

contents

3

Birmingham Third Sector Intelligence Mapping Survey - A study conducted on behalf of BVSC by Ipsos MORI

BVSC, the Centre for Voluntary Action1, is oneof the largest voluntary, community and socialenterprise sector support organisations in theUK. It provides support to charities, voluntaryorganisations and social enterprises to helpthem meet their objectives, as well asproviding opportunities for people to getinvolved with their local communities andmake a positive difference. Among their manyroles, they provide charities, voluntaryorganisations and social enterprises with asupport and information resource, a placementservice for volunteers, corporate services suchas payroll functions, and event spaces.

In its role of supporting charities, voluntaryorganisations and social enterprises in theBirmingham area, BVSC manages the BVSCThird Sector Database2. This is searchable viaBVSC’s website, and allows public sectoragencies, donors, the general public andfunders to find out more about what differentorganisations do and how they can get incontact with them.

In addition, BVSC manages the Third SectorAssembly3; a group of charities, voluntaryorganisations and social enterprises inBirmingham which participate in, and aim toinfluence and improve policy making andservice delivery in the city. Members areinvited to attend networking events and policyconsultations, giving them the chance to meetwith other organisations and to make sure theirvoice is heard by key decision-makers.

One of the key purposes of this research wasto update BVSC’s Third Sector Database. Tothis end, a telephone survey was conductedwith 500 organisations which are alreadyregistered on the database. This project wasclassed as ‘non-research’ by the MarketResearch Society (MRS) because the surveywas also being used to update the publicallyavailable database by ensuring that currentcontact details are correct.

The 2010 State of the Sector report identifiedseveral key trends including growing‘formalisation’ of third sector organisationswith more holding formal contracts with publicsector funders. In the context of recentchanges in public sector spending, it isimportant for this report to assess howpotential spending cuts may have impacted onthe sector and to test the ‘mood’ of the sectormore generally.

With this in mind, the other key purpose of thisproject was to build on previous BVSC State ofthe Sector reports by gathering and analysingdata on the size, shape and support needs ofthe voluntary and community sector inBirmingham.

The research element of this study willenhance BVSC’s understanding of the needsof voluntary and community sectororganisations in the area – this insight can beused to help partners to engage moreeffectively with the sector.

Background to BVSC Aims and objectives

introduction

1 http://www.bvsc.org/what-we-do 2 http://www.bvscthirdsectordatabase.org/ 3 http://www.bvsc.org/third-sector-assembly

4


This research follows on from a similar projectconducted by Ipsos MORI for BVSC in 2010(Capacity and support needs of Birmingham’svoluntary, community and social enterprisesector) which interviewed 200 smallorganisations (defined as those with an incomeor turnover of no more than £200,000) andencouraged as many of these as possible tojoin the Third Sector Assembly. In total 151organisations joined the Third SectorAssembly. In addition, a series of surveyquestions around capacity and support needswere asked, as well as an exploration of theviews of participating organisations on thegovernment’s ‘Big Society’ plans and theimpact this may have on their organisation, aswell as the wider sector.

In addition, larger surveys were conducted in 2008 and 2010 by Research By Designwhich formed the basis of BVSC’s State of theSector reports4. Where identical questionswere asked in both waves, data from thesemapping studies has been used to showtrends over time.

Sampling

BVSC supplied Ipsos MORI with a sample of1190 organisations on the Third SectorDatabase.

All organisations were then screened againstthe telephone preference service (TPS). In linewith MRS guidelines for conducting Category6 projects all 32 organisations registered withthe TPS were removed from the telephonesample and a total of 1158 organisationsremained in the final telephone sample.

All organisations were then sent an advancenotification letter outlining the purpose of thesurvey and giving them the opportunity to callIpsos MORI or BVSC to ‘opt in’ (or out).

Five organisations called Ipsos MORI to saythey did not wish to take part or were nolonger trading and were therefore removedfrom the sample. This resulted in a final sampleof 1153 organisations.

Methodology - summary

4 http://www.bvsc.org/bvsc-reports5 The full guidelines can be downloaded from http://www.mrs.org.uk/standards/mixed.htm.

5


Fieldwork

In total, 500 15-minute interviews wereconducted by Ipsos MORI using ComputerAssisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) between19th December 2011- 6th January 2012.

Interviews were conducted with either theperson registered as the organisation’s maincontact or the person who the initial contactfelt was best placed to answer questionsrelating to the organisational structure.

All organisations were asked to state the areain which their organisation operates – anyoperating outside Birmingham only werescreened out.

Many of the questions were designed toreplicate as closely as possible the questionsasked of organisations when registering on theBVSC Third Sector Database online, but itshould be noted that changes were madewhere necessary for the telephone approach.

Mixed method/category six guidelines

It is important to note that this project isclassed as a Category 6 mixed purpose studyby the Market Research Society (MRS) as thedata was collected for both non-researchpurposes (i.e. to update BVSC’s Third SectorDatabase) and research purposes (i.e. to beanalysed at the aggregate level to enhanceBVSC’s understanding of the sector).

The MRS produces specific guidelines forconducting category six projects, which wereadhered to by Ipsos MORI5. Key elements ofthese guidelines include:

� Clearly explaining the purposes for whichthe data will be used to the respondent. Itwas made clear to participants that theprimary purpose of the project was toupdate the BVSC Third Sector Database,and that they would be doing so by takingpart in the telephone interview, as well ashelping BSVC to better understand theneeds of the sector. This information wasprovided via the advance notification letterand again by the interviewer at the start ofthe telephone interview;

� Ensuring that there is a clear distinctionbetween research and non-researchelements of the project. For exampleavoiding words such as “research” or“representative” in non-research elementsof the project.

6


It is important to be aware that this surveydiffers from conventional research, as theprimary purpose was to update the BVSCThird Sector Database. Therefore no quotaswere set, meaning that these organisations arenot necessarily representative of the entirepopulation of interest. Nevertheless, theanalysis and profile information in this reportdoes provide a useful indication of thecapacity, support needs and opinions ofcharities, voluntary organisations and socialenterprises in the Birmingham area.

The analysis contained in the main body of thisreport focuses on the questions aroundsupport needs and perceptions of the likelyimpact of cuts to funding. Where relevant wehave added contextual data from Ipsos MORIand similar organisations and projects.

The results presented in this document arebased on all 500 interviews unless thequestion was only asked of a specific sub-section, in which case this is clearly stated.

Due to the relatively small survey sample sizethere is limited scope for detailed sub-groupanalysis. Where differences between sub-groups are noted, for example because theyare very large and particularly relevant, theseshould be interpreted with caution and asindicative findings only.

Figures quoted in graphs and tables arepercentages. The size of the sample base fromwhich the percentage is derived is indicated.Note that the base may vary and thepercentage is not always based on the totalsample. Caution is advised when comparingresponses between small sample sizes.

Where an asterisk (*) appears it indicates apercentage of less than one, but greater thanzero. Where percentages do not add up to100% this can be due to a variety of factors -such as the exclusion of ‘Don’t know’ or ‘Other’responses, multiple responses, or computerrounding the decimal points up or down.Computer rounding may also lead to a onepercentage point difference in combinationfigures (such as total agree or disagree)between those in the text and in the charts.

Interpreting the results

7


This survey takes place at a timeof great concern about the stateof the British economy, with thedouble dip recessioncompounding the damage tohousehold finances as a result ofthe last recession.

At the same time, the government iscontinuing its drive to encourage voluntarismas a way of helping to shore up some of thedeficits in the public sector.

It is therefore particularly important tounderstand the capacity and support needs ofcharitable organisations during this time. Thissurvey examines the views and needs of 500charities, voluntary organisations and socialenterprises located and operating in theBirmingham area. The insight provided willhelp BVSC to support and champion theneeds of these organisations as effectively aspossible.

Many of the organisationssurveyed in Birmingham feel theirorganisation needs help orsupport in at least one area:

� A third report having difficulty accessingsupport in the last year, in particular in thearea of finance and funding, which ismentioned by around four-fifths.Partnership working, with other voluntaryorganisations as well as the public sector, is also a crucial deficiency - three-fifthsreport this.

� In addition, there are many other areas inwhich help would be beneficial, including:partnering with other charitable sectororganisations; partnering with public sectororganisations; achieving greaterclient/beneficiary involvement; and/ormarketing and communications.

� In the context of concerns about finances, itis perhaps to be expected that half say theywould be unwilling to pay for support.However, more than a third think theywould, in principal, be willing to pay for atleast some of the help they mentionedwould be beneficial to them.

� Encouragingly, nine in ten report that theirorganisation is able to deliver their servicesor support to the standard they believe isrequired at least most of the time. Fewerthan one in ten say they are able to do soonly some of the time (8%) or never (1%).

� Advocacy (69%) and services such as careand counselling (60%) are the mostcommon services that charities areproviding.

executive summary

8


More than half (53%) of the organisationssurveyed operate exclusively in Birmingham.Smaller charities, both in terms of income perannum and the number of paid staff that theyemploy, are more likely to solely operate insideBirmingham (59% of those with an income lessthan £50,000 are solely based in the city, and57% of those with fewer than 5 staff do so).

Chart 1: Area of operation

Which of the following best applies to your organisation?

n It operates inside Birmingham only 53%

n It operates both inside and outside Birmingham 47%

Base: All organisations Source: Ipos MORI

One-third (34%) of the organisations have allof their beneficiaries located in Birmingham,whilst two-fifths (43%) have the majority ofbeneficiaries in Birmingham. This leaves one infive (21%) for whom most beneficiaries arebased outside the city.

Again, smaller charities in terms of bothrevenue and size are significantly more likely tohave all their beneficiaries in Birmingham, (59%and 64% respectively) contrasting withcharities whose revenue is in excess of£200,000 per annum (25%)

Chart 2: Location of beneficiaries

Which of the following best applies to your organisation?

n All of our beneficiaries are in Birmingham 34%

n Most of our beneficiaries are in Birmingham 43%

n Some of our beneficiaries are in Birmingham 21%

n None of our beneficiaries are in Birmingham 2%


Organisational scope

organisational scope and remit

47% 53%

21%

2%

43%

34%

9


More than half of the organisations (55%)surveyed have between 0 and 9 volunteersand this remains constant regardless ofincome and the number of paid staff that theyemploy. Only 6% have upwards of 90volunteers.

Chart 3: Volunteer numbers

How many volunteers does your organisationhave (excluding the management committeemembers/board members), if any?


Three-quarters (76%) of all organisationsemploy between 0 and 9 full or part-time staff.Organisations are significantly more likely toemploy lower numbers of staff if they operateonly within Birmingham (82%) and have anincome of up to £49,999 (98%).

Of those which felt that they were unable toprovide a good standard of service, nearly all(93%) had fewer than 10 employees,suggesting that understaffing could be aproblem.

Chart 4: Full and part-time staff numbers

And how many full and part-time paid staffdoes your organisation have, if any?


0-9

10-19

20-29

30-39

40-49

50-59

60-69

70-79

80-89

90+

Don’t know

55%

16%

10%

6%

3%

3%

1%

1%

1%

1%

2%

0-9

10-19

20-29

30-39

40-49

50-59

60-69

70-79

80-89

90+

Don’t know

76%

8%

4%

4%

3%

0%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

10


More than half (52%) of organisations reportthat more than 100 individuals have used theirservice in the last year, and just under half(47%) have had their service used by at leastone group or organisation.

Chart 5: Number of individuals using the service

How many individuals have used your servicein the last year?


However, two-fifths of all organisations havenot had their service used by any groups(38%) or organisations (36%) in the last year.

Chart 6: Number of groups using the service

How many groups have used your servicelast year?


Service delivery

0

1-5

6-10

11-15

16-20

21-50

51-100

101-999

1,000+

Don’t know

6%

13%

2%

2%

2%

3%

9%

30%

22%

10%

0

1-5

6-10

11-15

16-20

21-50

51-100

101-999

1,000+

Don’t know

38%

16%

4%

10%

15%

5%

5%

2%

6%

0%

11


Chart 7: Number of organisations using the service

How many organisations have used yourservice last year?


Advocacy (69%) and services such as careand counselling (60%) are the most commonservices that charities are providing, witharound two-fifths (37%) providing humanresources and the same percentage providingbuildings/facilities/open space. A quarter oforganisations provide sporting activities, act asumbrellas or resource bodies, or sponsor orundertake research.

Chart 8: Services provided

Which, if any, of the following does yourorganisation provide? (Top mentions: 4%+ only)


0

1-5

6-10

11-15

16-20

21-50

51-100

101-999

1,000+

Don’t know

36%

19%

8%

17%

4%

3%

2%

4%

1%

6%

Advocacy/advice/information

Services e.gcare/counselling

Human resource

Buildings/facilities/open space

Sportingactivities/facilities

Acts as umbrella orresource body

Sponsors orundertakes research

Grants toorganisations

Grants toindividuals

Other finance (e.g pensions/

investment fund)

None

69%

60%

37%

37%

4%

4%

26%

26%

25%

8%

8%

12


More than half of organisations (57%) reportedan increase in the demand for their service inthe last twelve months, though, for a third (33%)there has been no change. Larger organisationsin terms of income (69%), number of volunteers(62%) and paid staff (61%) were most likely tohave said that there was an increase in demandfor their services. Fewer than one in ten (7%)thought that there had been a decline in thedemand for their service.

Chart 9: Demand for service

Has the demand for your organisation’s serviceincreased/decreased or remained unchangedin the last 12 months?

n Increased 57%

n Decreased 7%

n No change 33%

n Don’t know 3 %


33% 57%

3%

7%

13


‘Investors in People’ is the most commonquality standard that organisations achieved in2011 (15%); a return to a level similar to 2008(18%.). Seven per cent have achieved thePQASSO quality mark, and 5% achievedOFSTED or Matrix standards.

Chart 10: Quality standards

Which, if any, quality systems or standards hasyour organisation achieved?


At present, very few have achieved theQUASRO standard (1%), though three in ten(29%) are working towards this achievement,which is a 28 percentage point increase from2008 and 2010.The number of organisationswhich are not presently working towards anyquality systems or standards has fallen sharplyfrom 78% to 18%, and, with a slight decreasein the percentage which have achieved noquality systems or standards (from 63% to56%) there are indications that the sector isplacing increasing importance on suchinitiatives.

Chart 11: Quality standards

And which, if any, quality systems or standards isyour organisation currently working towards?


Quality standards

Investors in People (IIP)

PQASSO

Matrix

OFSTED

Quality Mark

Investors in Volunteers

Two ticks Disability Kite Mark

Social Enterprise Mark

ISO9000

Charter Mark

15%

7%

5%

5%

4%

2%

2%

3%

3%

3%

QUASRO

Investors in People (IIP)

PQASSO

ISO9000

Investors in Volunteers

OFSTED

Matrix

Quality Mark

Social Enterprise Mark

Quality First

Care Quality Commission

29%

3%

3%

2%

2%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

quality

14


Looking at the policies and procedures that the organisations have in place, just over four-fifths (84%)have an equal opportunities and anti-discriminatory policy, and more than three- quarters have both acomplaints procedure and a grievance and disciplinary procedure (78% and 77% respectively).These findings are broadly in line with 2010, though there is a broad increase from 2008. Aroundseven in ten have a governance policy (68%, an increase from 60% in 2010) and a volunteer policy(69%). In every instance, organisations with more than six staff and a turnover greater than £200,000are likely to have these policies in place.

Chart 12: Policies and procedures

Which of the following policies and procedures does your organisation have?


Equal opportunities and anti discriminatory policy

Complaints procedure

Grievance and disciplinary procedure

Volunteer policy

Governance policy

Staff development policy

Staff supervision policy

Environmental policy

Family and flexible working policy

None of these

Don’t know

84%

11%

1%

69%

77%

78%

68%

59%

49%

42%

60%

15


The overwhelming majority of organisations (85%) monitor their work and services, in line with2010 (89%). Organisations which think that they are able to deliver a good level of service aresignificantly more likely (87%) to have a monitoring system in place compared with the mean(85%).

Of those which monitor their work and services, two-thirds (64%) do so because they are requiredto. Companies with a turnover greater than £200,000 are more likely to be required to monitor theircompany (75%) and, consequently, more actually do (95%).

Chart 13: Monitoring work/services

Does your organisation monitor its work and/or services?

n Yes 85%

n No 11%

n Don’t know 4%


Are you required to monitor your work andservices by funders?

n Yes 64%

n No 29%

n Don’t know 7%

Base: All organisations which monitor their work and/or services Source: Ipos MORI

11%4%

29%

7%

64%

85%

16


Half (51%) of all organisations have no formal contracts in place; this is particularly the case fororganisations which employ fewer than six staff and have an income of less than £50,000 (65% and72% respectively). Amongst those who do actually receive formal funding, Birmingham City Councilis the most common provider - over a third (37%) of organisations have contracts, (compared with43% in 2010), and compared with just 8% for Birmingham and Solihill PCT and 7% with any otherlocal authority.

Chart 14: Contracts and service level agreements

With which public sector organisations do you have a formal contract or service level agreement(for example local councils or PCTs), if any? (Top mentions - 2%+ only)


Birmingham City Council

Birmingham & Solihull PCT

Any other local authority

Any other PCT

Birmingham & Solihull Learning & Skills Council (LSC)

Birmingham colleges/schools/universities

Other health authorities/ambulance service

Youth/educational associations/bodies

Other

We have no formal contracts/SLA’s

37%

51%

4%

7%

8%

1%

1%

1%

2%

4%

Two-thirds (64%) of organisations receiveincome generated through donations andfundraising, and half (50%) supplement theirincome with activities such as room hire andsales. Three in ten (29%) generate revenuefrom memberships and/or subscriptions. In allcases these results are in line with previoussurveys.

Organisations which have more than fivevolunteers are more likely to generate incomethrough donations or fundraising than thosewith five or less (75% vs. 51%), which isunderstandable, given the greater number ofpeople involved with the charity.

Chart 15: Self-generated funding streams

From which of the following earned or self-generated income sources did yourorganisation receive funding for the lastfinancial year, if any?


In terms of revenue received from the statutorysector, half (48%) receive local authorityfunding, broadly in line with 2010, though only13% receive funding from central government,and 12% receive it from the NHS. There areindications of a steady decrease since 2008.Organisations with an income of more than£200,000 are more likely to receive thisfunding (68%) compared with those of anincome of less than £50,000 (31%).

Chart 16: Public/statutory funding streams

From which of the following public or statutorysources did your organisation receive fundingfor the last financial year, if any?


17


Donations and/orfundraising

Income-generatingactivities

Memberships and/orsubscriptions

Charging forservices/courses

Investments/interest/trust funds

None of these

Other

Don’t know

64%

1%

1%

1%

29%

50%

2%

16%

Local authority funding

Central Government funding

NHS

Police, community safety orcrime reduction partnership

European funding

Learning and Skills Council orBusiness Link

None of these

48%

8%

6%

12%

13%

42%

5%

sources of funding

18


Three in ten (31%) organisations received somekind of funding from charitable trusts andfoundations, with 18% having had some formof lottery funding. Around half (54%) have notreceived funding from any of these bodies, andthis is much more likely to be the caseamongst organisations with a turnover of lessthan £50,000.

Chart 17: Other sources of income

From which of the following other sources didyour organisation receive funding for thefinancial year, if any?


Approximately two-thirds (65%) oforganisations have cash reserves that can bedeployed if required, rising to 80% of thosewith an income of more than £200,000.

Chart 18: Cash reserves

Do you have cash reserves in the bank thatcan be deployed if necessary?

n Yes 65%

n No 26%

n Don’t know 8 %


Charitable trusts andfoundations

National Lottery

Faith-based sources

Communityempowerment (e.g. NRF)

Other

None of these

31%

2%

2%

7%

18%

54%

26% 65%

8%

19


Previous research conducted in 2011 shows a decline in both the overall likelihood of givingmoney to charity, with 38% of households now less likely to donate money to charity comparedwith 31% in March 2010. This indicates that it is still crucial for households to prioritise theirfinances, and charitable giving has suffered as a result.

Chart 19: Is economic uncertainty beginning to bite?

Could you please tell me which, if any, of the following statements best describes you? In thecurrent economic climate I would be...

The funding ‘gap’

Base: All adults aged 15+ in GB/UK 2-8 Sept 2011 Source: Ipos MO

n Much more likely to donate money to charity

n Neither more or less likely to donate money to charity

n Slightly more likely to donate money to charity

n Slightly less likely to donate money to charity

n Much less likely to donate money to charity

March 2009 Base (2,087)

Sept 2009 Base (1,971)

March 2010 Base (2,047)

Sept 2011 Base (2,050)

3% 7% 58% 21% 11%

3% 9% 56% 22% 10%

3% 9% 58% 20% 11%

3% 9% 50% 24% 14%

20


In terms of the method of charitable giving, there have been falls across four key types ofcollection, all of which involve handing over cash to charity collectors, a key source of revenue formany third sector organisations. This means perhaps that it is crucial for organisations which relyon donations as a source of income to diversify their donation streams, and perhaps attach morefocus to online and regular donations with long-term commitments.

Chart 20: Some types of charitable giving have decreased slightly in the UK

Which, if any, of the following have you done for charity in the last two to three years?(% - top mentions)

n Sept 2011 n Mar 2010

Put money in collection tin

Given money to a street collector

Given money to a door-to-door collector

Put money in a collection envelope

64%

66%

54%

57%

23%

27%

23%

25%

Base: All adults aged 15+ (2,050), 2-8 Sept 2011 Source: Ipos MORI

21


Based on the Charity Commission’s Annual Return data (which includes all charities with anannual income of more than £500k) we can see a difference between large and small charities interms of voluntary income earned during the recession.

The numbers show that, between 2007 and 2009, the level of voluntary donations was relativelystable for charities with an annual voluntary income of less than £10m, increasing only by 2.2%.

However, for charities with an annual voluntary income of more than £10m, the level of voluntarydonations dropped by nearly 11%, or £855m, over the same period.

This might indicate that donors are placing increasing impact on ‘local’ – and that very largeorganisations, with strong brands, which are able to rely on informal giving, have suffered as aresult of less money being handed over.

Chart 21: Giving during the recession (cafonline.org) - bigger charities suffering most?

In ‘An overview of charitable giving in the UK’6 – research conducted by NCVO and CAF, we cansee that the proportion of UK adults giving to charity has actually risen by 2% to 58% - meaningan additional 1.1 million people gave to charity. However, the average monthly amount declinedby £1 to £11. In real terms, donations are worth £900m less – this indicates, perhaps, thatcharitable giving is becoming more commonplace, but less substantial.

0.41

Voluntary income (£ billions)

0 - 500,000 501,000 -1,000,000

1,000,001 -5,000,000

5,000,001 -10,000,000

10,000,001 -50,000,000

50,000,001 -100,000,000

Over100,000,000

0.420.70 0.69

2.52 2.52

1.35 1.45

2.94 2.863.08

2.62

1.76 1.46

Base: 7,196; all charities with a return in 2007, 2008 and 2009, as at March 2011 Source: Ipos MORI

Voluntary income over timeTrends in voluntary income (aggregated), annualreturn 2007-2009 panel, adjusted for inflation

n Voluntary income annual return 2007

n Voluntary income annual return 2009

6 http://www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/sites/default/files/clickable_UK_Giving_2011.pdf

22


It is widely accepted that government cutshave had a significant effect on theperformance of many organisations in thevoluntary sector, and, for many, they mayaffect their ability to function altogether.However, exactly measuring the impact thatthey have had is difficult, as there is nocomprehensive source of data on this subject.Various blogs and commentators areattempting to keep track7, though a morerigorous, scientific tool is needed.

The ‘Voluntary Sector Cuts’8 site was launchedin January 2011, and aims to map intelligenceabout voluntary groups’ experience ofreductions in public sector funding.Organisations are invited to share the numberof cuts that they have experienced and theirtotal value, and, as of January 2012, 509 cutshad been reported, with a total value of £77million. However, while it is difficult toextrapolate what this means to the country asa whole, it is important to note that roughlytwo-thirds of these cuts were from fundsprovided by local government.

There is also regional disparity in terms of theeffects of the cuts. One survey9 reports that51% of organisations in London have had toclose or to reduce the level of services thatthey provide. Another10 showed that 62% oforganisations in the North East had seen adecrease in funding (while our data shows that46% of organisations in Birmingham havebeen affected), and, though this varianceexists, there is a sense that many localauthorities are making disproportionately largecuts to the voluntary and community sector,almost as if the sector is first in the ‘firing line’.

Though data from the NCVO almanacprogramme takes a while to become available,it is clear looking at the data from the yearsbefore the cuts were announced that therewere falls in statutory income across theboard. This was most prevalent in the area ofearned income, investment income, andincome from statutory sources, all of which fellby £600 million, between 09/10 and 08/09,whereas expenditure on charitable activities(excluding grants) increased by £200 million.

Being mindful that the cuts are coupled withthe falls in donations previously discussed(NCVO estimates that giving levels fell around10% during the recession and have not fullyrecovered11) and an increased demand forservices, this represents an extremelychallenging time for the sector.

Overview on spending

7 Eg. http://phase2.wheredoesmymoneygo.org/cuts/8 http://voluntarysectorcuts.org.uk/9 www.lvsc.org.uk/campaigns/big-squeeze.aspx10www.vonne.org.uk/campaigns/surviving_not_thriving.php?flink=72811 http://www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/sites/default/files/counting_the_cuts.pdf

23


On average, half (46%) of organisations’overall service has been affected by fundingcuts in the last 12 months; two-fifths (39%)have reported that the cuts have had no effecton their service. Amongst those that have, anaverage of 49% of overall service has beenaffected, rising to 59% of organisations withan income/turnover of less than £50,000.

One in ten (8%) have reported that 100% oftheir service has been affected by cuts infunding; this is a particular problem fororganisations with an income between £50,000and £199,000 (17% report this phenomenon).

Chart 22: Cuts in service

What percentage of your organisation’s overallservice has been affected by funding cuts inthe last 12 months?


Nearly all organisations (94%) are confident thatthey will survive the next three months but thisfigure drops off sharply as the time period isextended to one year (81%), three years (58%)and five years (45%). Throughout, it is charitieswhose revenue is between £50,000 and£199,999 that are less likely to be confident intheir future. This may be due to them not beingused to operating within the tight constraints ofa small organisation. Indeed, it is the smallestorganisations which are most confident (65%)of their future within a five year timeframe.

Chart 23: Organisations service

Are you confident of your organisation’s futurefor the following periods?

n Yes n No n Don’t know

cuts to funding and the effects

0-9

10-19

20-29

30-39

40-49

50-59

60-69

70-79

80-89

90-99

100

Don’t know

None/not affected

3%

6%

8%

8%

15%

4%

39%

2%

3%

3%

2%

1%

7%

5%

94%

1%

For the next 3 months

13%

81%

6%

For the next 6 to 12 months

24


Chart 23: Organisations service (continued)

Are you confident of your organisation’s futurefor the following periods?

n Yes n No n Don’t know


The most anticipated effect of the cuts infunding is the (in)ability for organisations tocontinue to deliver their services (55%), withthis effect particularly strong in largerorganisations in terms of income (74%) andpaid staff (62%). However, similar percentagesare concerned about the effect on theirbeneficiaries (54%) and staff (50%). Half (48%)of organisations state that they will have aneffect on their ability to continue operating. Alleffects are more likely to be anticipatedamongst larger organisations.

Chart 24: Cuts with a significant impact

In which of the following areas do you think thecuts will have a significant impact?


For the next 3 months

17%

24%

58%For the next 1 to 3 years

26%

29%

For the next 5 years 45%

The ability to deliver

Beneficiaries

Staff

The ability to continue operating

Don’t know

55%

48%

24%

50%

54%

25


Encouragingly, nine out of ten (90%)organisations believe that they are able todeliver to the required standard at least ‘mostof the time’. One in ten say that they are able todeliver the required services some of the time(8%), with only 1% which are never able to.

Chart 25: Ability to deliver

Is your organisation able to deliver its services orsupport to the standard you believe is required?

n All of the time 44%

n Most of the time 46%

n Some of the time 8%

n Never 1%

n Don’t know 1%


This encouraging finding ties in with data fromthe 2010 National Survey of Charities and SocialEnterprises (NSCSE) which shows that 86% ofthird sector organisations in Birmingham feelthey have been successful in meeting their mainobjectives in the last 12 months, and that 83%are confident that their organisation will continueto do so over the next 12 months12.

Financial resources continue to be the primaryarea in which organisations feel that they arelacking with over a quarter (26%) citing theirfinancial reserves and just under a quarter(23%) their overall income.

A fifth (21%) are concerned about not havingenough volunteers. Volunteer numbers is thearea in which organisations with a smallerrevenue feel that they are most lacking (32%).This is most likely due to the limited resourcesthat they have to operate with, thus theincreased relative importance of volunteers.

Chart 26: Lack of capacity/resources

In which areas, if any, is your organisationlacking the capacity or resources it needs tomeet its own objectives?


Capacity and resources

capacity and support

8%

1%1%

44%

46%

12 http://www.nscsesurvey.com/download/2010/Birmingham.pdf

Financial reserves

Overall level of income

Volunteers

Paid staff

Networking opportunities

Advice and support

Space to operate

Information and communication technology

Business support and back officeservices such as HR or payroll

Management and leadership staff

26%

16%

13%

21%

23%

11%

9%

8%

7%

12%

26


The nationwide picture shows that informal volunteering has been affected by the recession;where two-thirds (67%) volunteered in 2001, this percentage has fallen to just above half (54%) in2010, and the indications are that this shortfall will most affect smaller voluntary organisations,perhaps making it harder for them to compete against larger organisations in the sector.13

Chart 27: Informal help is declining nationally

Proportion who have volunteered informally at least once a year

13 Ipsos MORI/CLG Citizenship Survey 09-10 http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/statistics/pdf/2056236.pdf

67%

% given unpaid help

2001 2003 2005 2007/8 2008-09 2009/10

63%68%

64% 62%54%

Base: All valid responses from core sample in England (8,000 surveyed per wave) Source: Citizenship Survey

27


Access to funding is the primary area in which organisations think that they would benefit, mentionedby four-fifths (79%). Larger organisations, with greater numbers of paid (86%) and unpaid (85%) staffare significantly more likely to name increased funding as being most beneficial to them.

Three-fifths think that partnership with other public sector organisations (62%) and other charities(61%) would be of most benefit to them. Partnership may also be a good way of addressingconcerns about charities not having a voice in local decision-making.

Other areas in which organisations think that support would be of benefit are in marketing andcommunications (57%), achieving greater client or beneficiary involvement (50%), ensuring thattheir views inform policies (48%) and in developing and maintaining membership (40%).

Chart 28: Support required

And in which of the following areas would your organisation most benefit from help, if any?

Key support needs

Greater access to funding

Partnership with public sector organisations

Partnership with other voluntary organisations

Marketing and communications

Achieving greater client/beneficiary involvement

Ensuring your views and experiences inform local policies

Developing and maintaining membership

Business planning

Preparing for change

Diversifying staff, volunteers and trustees

Gaining access to rooms for meetings/events

Consortium delivery

Running offices/premises

None of these

Don’t know

79%

62%

61%

57%

50%

48%

40%

39%

38%

38%

34%

27%

24%

19%

2%


28


One-third (35%) of organisations have haddifficulty accessing the support that theyrequire, and this is particularly high amongstsmaller organisations (47%), whose revenue isless than £50,000. Sixty-one per cent of thoseorganisations which said that they were notable to deliver their services to a goodstandard also said that they had experienceddifficulty in accessing support that theyrequired.

Chart 29: Accessing support

Has your organisation experienced any difficultyover the last year or so in accessing the supportyou need or not?

n Yes 35%

n No 65%


Accessing support

65%

35%

29


Within those organisations which have had difficulty accessing the support they need, finance andfunding is the most common problem area, with three-quarters (74%) stating that they havestruggled to access this, tying in with the four-fifths (79%) which feel they would most benefit fromgreater access to funding.

The second and third areas of inaccessible support are of considerably lower salience; access tosupport to improve performance and service (11%) and volunteer numbers (10%).

Chart 30: Difficulty in accessing support

What type of support have you had difficulty in accessing?

Finance and funding

Support to improve your performance or quality of service

Volunteers

Venues/property/space to workfrom/accomodation for meetings

Training

Information/advice/access to clear guidance

Recruitment and training of paid staff

Marketing

Support from/working with othercharities/community centres

Trustees, management committees andgovernance

Other

74%

11%

10%

5%

5%

3%

2%

2%

2%

2%

9%

Base: All organisations who have experienced difficulty in accessing required support in 2011 (175) Source: Ipos MORI

30


Given the present financial concerns that havebeen expressed it is of little surprise that half(49%) of organisations that would benefit fromhelp stated that they would be unwilling to payfor services that may benefit them. In spite ofthis, in excess of a third (37%) said that theymay be willing to spend money to secureadditional services, rising to half (51%) oforganisations with an income in excess of£200,000.

Chart 31: Willingness to pay for support services

Thinking about the help you said yourorganisation would benefit from, how willing, ifat all, do you think you might be to pay for anyof that help?

n Very willing 6%

n Fairly willing 31%

n Not very willing 27%

n Not at all willing 22%

n Don’t know 14%

Base: All organisations that would benefit from help (375) Source: Ipos MORI

Willingness to pay for support services

22%

14%

27%

31%

6%

31


In general, organisations agree that BVSC is a positive influence in promoting the work of the thirdsector. Seven in ten are of the belief that it provides accessible support and resource for thesector and its partners, encourages active citizenship as a champion for voluntary action, andenables an influential third sector as a force for positive change.

Net agreement (those who agree minus those who disagree) is highest with the statements that itpromotes the work and achievements of the third sector (+66) and that it represents andcommunicates third sector views and issues (+67). Across all statements, larger organisations interms of staff and turnover are more likely to see BVSC in a more positive light.

Chart 32: BVSC involvement

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about BVSC?

bvsc’s views and conclusions

n % Strongly agree

n % Tend to agree

n % Neither agree or disagree

n % Tend to disagree

n % Strongly disagree

n % Don’t know


36 38 8 4 3 12

36 33 9 3 3 16

34 39 7 4 3 13

32 38 10 6 3 11

30 38 10 5 3 15

BVSC encourages active citizenship as achampion for voluntary action

BVSC provides accessible support andresource for the third sector and its partners

BVSC enables an influential third sector as aforce for positive change

BVSC promotes the work and achievementsof the wider third sector

BVSC represents and communicates thirdsector views and issues

32


Data from the 2010 National Survey ofCharities and Social Enterprises (NSCSE)13

shows that a quarter (24%) of third sectororganisations in Birmingham receive supportfrom other charities or social enterprises. Thisis an increase from 19% in 2008, and manyorganisations are no doubt referring to BVSC.Indeed, there seems to be much positivitytowards BVSC, with high net agreement thatthe organisation acts as a positive force acrossthe sector in various different ways.

However, there are areas revealed in thissurvey where there are continuing needsaround the provision of guidance and advice,and it is clear that there is a continuing role forthe organisation in terms of helping thevoluntary sector in Birmingham navigate itsway through an era of restricted funding andincreased demand.

For instance, three-fifths of organisations feelthat they would benefit from partnershipworking with other voluntary organisations, orother public sector organisations, which is akey role that BVSC is equipped for.

On the BVSC website, BVSC claims that itworks to:

� Provide local people with volunteeringopportunities to allow them to make apositive difference to their communities

� Provide information, guidance andresources to voluntary and communityorganisations to help them to thrive for thebenefit of local residents

� Champion the voluntary sector as aninfluential force for positive change.

So it is perhaps crucial that third sectororganisations in Birmingham are made awarethat such support is available to them;especially when a third report that they haveexperienced difficulty in accessing the supportthat they need over the last year. Furthermore,some of the help that BVSC provides isperhaps not recognised by someorganisations, such as conferences13, whereasa third of respondents require help gainingaccess to rooms for meetings and events.

Perhaps one key role for BVSC is to furtherengender a sense of community amongst thirdsector organisations; the more supported theyfeel by one another and by BVSC itself themore they will have access to informationregarding both the logistical side of operatinga third sector organisation as well as themarketing and business planning side.Crucially, perhaps, it will expose them to morefunding activities, the area that they feel theywould benefit most from.

13 http://www.nscsesurvey.com/download/2010/Birmingham.pdf14 http://www.bvsc.org/conferencing-meeting-room-hire

33


Chart 33: Percentage of incomefrom earned income

What percentage of your total income wasreceived last financial year from earned income?


Chart 34: Annual turnover or income and expenditure

In your organisation’s last full financial year, whatwas your total income (charities)/turnover (otherorganisations)?

n Up to £5,000 n £5,001 - £20,000

n £20,001 - £100,000 n £100,001 - £500,000

n Over £500,000 n Don’t know

In your organisation’s last full financial year, whatwas your total expenditure?


supplementary profile data

0%

1-10%

11-20%

21-30%

31-40%

41-50%

51-60%

61-70%

71-80%

81-90%

91-100%

Refused

Don’t know

23%

25%

12%

5%

5%

15%

2%

1%

1%

3%

3%

3%

3%

15%

15%10%

37%

12%

11%

13%

14%8%

42%

13%

10%

34


Dear Sir/Madam,

Birmingham's third sector - help us tounderstand your capacity and needs

We are writing to ask for your help with someimportant work that Birmingham VoluntaryService Council (BVSC) is carrying out aboutthe state of the voluntary sector in Birminghamin 2011.

BVSC has asked the independent researchorganisation Ipsos MORI to survey a sample oftheir members and at the same time updatetheir contact records for their database.

BVSC is a registered charity15 and as you mayknow, you are already a member of a BSVCnetwork (being listed on its database is alsofree of charge), so the first part of the interviewis ensuring your current contact details arecorrect. The second part of the interview willhelp BVSC further understand the currentcapacity and support needs of organisationssuch as yours, so that these can be madeclear to policy and decision makers.

How you can take part

The interview will take place in the last week ofNovember and first week of December 2011.An interviewer from Ipsos MORI may contactyou by telephone during this time to invite youto take part in a short telephone interview,which will last for about 15 minutes. Takingpart is entirely voluntary, although we hopethat you can do so, as your views are veryimportant.

What happens to my responses?

Ipsos MORI will update your contact detailsaccordingly and pass them back to BVSC. Theadditional survey data will then be used tocreate the 2011 State of the Sector reportwhich is circulated widely throughout thevoluntary and community sector and withinstatutory organisations e.g. Birmingham CityCouncil, to aid policy decisions aroundsupport to the sector and to provide allrelevant organisations with an overview of theissues and challenges facing the sector. To seeprevious copies of this report, please visitwww.bvsc.org.

Where can I find out more?

More detailed information follows overleaf, butif you have any questions or would like anyother information, please contact JulieWhiteman at BVSC (0121 678 8877 [email protected]) or Jerry Latter at Ipsos MORI(020 7347 3295 or [email protected]).

I very much hope you are able to take part andthank you in advance for your help with thisimportant project.

Yours faithfully,

Brian Carr, Chief Executive, BVSC

David Craig, Head of Charities Research,Ipsos MORI

appendix 1: advance letter

15 Registered charity number 218795

35


� 500 third sector organisations in the Birmingham area were interviewed for this survey.

� The survey was conducted using Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI).

� Fieldwork took place between 19th December 2011 - 6th Jan 2012.

� No weighting was applied to the data

� Where results do not sum to 100%, this may be due to multiple responses, computer roundingor the exclusion of don’t knows/not stated.

� Results are based on all respondents (500), unless otherwise stated.

� An asterisk (*) represents a value of less than one half of one percent, but not zero.

SCREENER: Which of the following best applies to your organisation?

SINGLE CODE 2008 (%) 2010 (%) 2011(%)

It operates inside Birmingham only 70 58 53

It operates both inside and outside Birmingham 30 42 47

Note: organisations operating outside Birmingham only were screened out at this question.

Q1: Which of the following best applies to your organisation?

SINGLE CODE %

All of our beneficiaries are in Birmingham 34

Most of our beneficiaries are in Birmingham 43

Some of our beneficiaries are in Birmingham 21

None of our beneficiaries are in Birmingham 1

Don’t know 1

BVSC third sector intelligence mapping surveyQuestionnaire Topline Results 19.01.12

appendix 2: topline results

36


Q2: Which, if any, of the following does your organisation provide?

MULTICODE %

Advocacy/advice/information 69

Services (e.g. care/counselling) 60

Human resource (e.g. staff/volunteers) 37

Buildings/facilities/open space 37

Sporting activities/facilities 26

Acts as umbrella or resource body 26

Sponsors or undertakes research 25

Grants to organisations (incl. schools, charities, etc) 8

Grants to individuals (includes loans) 8

Other finance (e.g. pensions/Investment fund) 4

Educational/teaching/training services 1

Raise funds - unspecified -

Arts-based activities *

Provides homes/rented housing -

Religious based services *

Other *

None 4

Q3: How many volunteers does yourorganisation have (excluding the managementcommittee members/board members), if any?

SINGLE CODE %

0-9 55

10-19 16

20-29 10

30-89 9

90+ 6

Mean 91

Q4: And how many full and part time paidstaff does your organisation have, if any?

SINGLE CODE %

0-9 76

10-19 8

20-29 4

30-89 7

90+ 4

Mean 28

37


Q5a: Which, if any, Quality Systems or Standards has your organisation achieved?Q5b: And which, if any, Quality Systems or Standards is your organisation currently working towards?

MULTICODE Achieved (Q6a) Working towards (Q6b)2008 (%) 2010 (%) 2011( %) 2008( %) 2010 (%) 2011 (%)

Investors in People (IIP) 18 7 15 6 7 3

PQASSO 9 9 7 10 8 3

OFSTED 9 6 5 2 * 1

Matrix 6 7 5 2 3 1

Quality Mark 4 3 4 3 2 1

Two ticks disability Kite Mark 4 * 3 1 * *

Social Enterprise Mark - - 3 - - 1

Investors in Volunteers 2 2 3 2 2 2

Charter Mark 2 1 2 2 1 *

ISO9000 1 1 2 2 1 2

Quality First 1 1 1 2 1 1

Fund raising Standards Board - - 1 - - -

Management - - 1 - - -

EFQM - - 1 - - -

Home Start Quality Standards - - 1 - - *

QUASRO * * 1 1 * 29

Community - other - - 1 - - *

Care Quality Commission - - 1 - - 1

Healthy setting award - - - - - -

Charity Commission - - - - - -

Can’t remember - - * - - *

Quality - other - - * - - 1

Other 9 4 5 4 1 2

None 55 63 56 76 78 18

Don’t know - - 6 - - 33

38


Q6: How many individuals, groups and organisations have used your service in the last year?

SINGLE CODE Individuals (%) Groups (%) Organisations (%)

0 6 38 36

1-5 2 15 19

6-10 2 10 8

11-15 2 4 4

16-20 3 5 3

21-50 10 5 6

51-100 9 2 2

101-999 30 6 4

1000+ 22 * 1

Don’t Know 13 16 17

Mean 3578 30 30

Q7: Which of the following policies and procedures does your organisation have, if any?

SINGLE CODE 2008 (%) 2010 (%) 2011 (%)

Equal opportunities and Anti Discriminatory Policy 73 81 84

Complaints procedure 67 75 78

Grievance and disciplinary procedure 66 75 77

Volunteer policy - - 69

Governance Policy 48 60 68

Staff Development Policy 49 60 60

Staff Supervision Policy 50 60 59

Environmental Policy - - 49

Family and Friends Working policy 32 48 42

None of these 25 16 11

Don’t Know - - 1

39


Q8: Does your organisation monitor itswork and services?

SINGLE CODE 2008 (%) 2010 (%) 2011 (%)

Yes 88 89 85

No 12 11 11

Not applicable - - 4

Q9: Are you required to monitor your workand services by funders?

SINGLE CODE 2008 (%) 2010 (%) 2011 (%)

Yes 60 68 64

No 28 24 29

Not applicable 12 9 7

Base: All organisations who monitor their work and/or services (423)

Q10: With which public sector organisations do you have a formal contract or service levelagreement (for example local councils or PCTs), if any?

MULTICODE 2008 (%) 2010 (%) 2011(%)

Birmingham City Council 41 43 37

Birmingham & Solihull PCT 11 12 8

Any other Local Authority 9 12 7

Any other PCT 8 5 4

Birmingham & Solihull Learning & Skills Council (LSC) (now the Skills Funding Agency - SFA) 5 4 2

Other health authorities/ambulance service - - 1

Birmingham colleges/schools/universities - - 1

Youth/educational associations/bodies - - 1

Connexions - - -

Arts bodies - - *

Other 18 17 4

We have no formal contracts/SLAs 50 46 51

Don’t know - - 2

40


Q11a: In your organisation’s last fullfinancial year what was your totalincome/turnover?

SINGLE CODE %

Up to £5000 12

£5001 - £20,000 11

£20,001 - £100,000 15

£100,001 - £500,000 15

Over £500,000 10

None/nothing 4

Refused 1

Don’t Know 31

Q11b: In your organisation’s last fullfinancial year what was your totalexpenditure?

SINGLE CODE %

Up to £5000 13

£5001 - £20,000 10

£20,001 - £100,000 13

£100,001 - £500,000 14

Over £500,000 8

None/nothing 3

Refused 1

Don’t Know 38

Q12: From which of the following earned or self generated income sources did yourorganisation receive funding for the last financial year, if any?

MULTICODE 2008 (%) 2010 (%) 2011 (%)

Donations and/or Fundraising 68 60 64

Income generation activities (e.g. room or facility hire,shops, sale of publications, etc) 49 54 50

Memberships and/or subscriptions 31 26 29

Charging for services/courses - - 1

Investments/interest/trust funds - - 1

Rental income - - -

Other 18 16 2

None of these 12 18 16

41


Q13: From which of the following public or statutory sources did your organisation receivefunding for the last financial year, if any?

MULTICODE 2008 (%) 2010 (%) 2011(%)

Local Authority Funding (e.g. learning and culture, socialcare and health, Service Level Agreement, Grant award) 50 52 48

Central Government Funding (e.g. SRB6, Neighbourhood Renewal) 20 18 13

NHS (e.g. Health Authority, Primary Care Trust) 16 15 12

Police, Community Safety, or Crime Reduction Partnership 6 5 8

European Funding (e.g. ESF) 9 9 6

Learning and Skills Council or Business Link 9 7 5

Don’t know - - 2

Q14: What percentage of your total incomewas received last financial year from earnedincome?

SINGLE CODE %

0 23

1-10% 12

11-20% 5

21-30% 5

31-40% 2

41-50% 3

51-60% 1

61-70% 3

71-80% 3

81-90% 3

91-100% 15

Refused 1

Don’t know 25

Mean 27

Q15: From which of the following othersources did your organisation receivefunding for the last financial year, if any?

MULTICODE %

Charitable Trusts and Foundations 31

National Lottery (e.g. Big Lottery Fund, Heritage Fund) 18

Faith Based (e.g. Faith Communities Capacity Building Fund, etc) 7

Community Empowerment (e.g. NRF) 2

Any other sources 2

None of these 54

Don’t know 3

Q16: Do you have cash reserves in the bankthat can be deployed if necessary?

SINGLE CODE %

Yes 65

No 26

Refused 1

Don’t know 8

42


Q17: And in which of the following areas would your organisation most benefit from help, if any?

MULTICODE OK %

Greater access to funding 79

Working in partnership with public sector organisations 62

Working in partnership with other voluntary organisations 61

Marketing and communications 57

Achieving greater client/beneficiary involvement 50

Ensuring the views and experiences of your organisation inform local policies 48

Developing and maintaining membership 40

Business planning 39

Diversifying staff, volunteers and trustees (such as creating a broad mix of ethnicity, gender, etc) 38

Preparing for change (such as change in your organisation’s management structure or external policies) 38

Gaining access to rooms for meetings and events 34

Consortium delivery 27

Running offices/premises 24

None of these 19

Don’t know 2

Q18: Are there any other areas, not alreadycovered, in which your organisation wouldmost benefit from help or support?

OPEN RESPONSEMentions above 1% only %

Greater access to funding 4

Training 2

IT/technology/Social Media/Internet 2

Marketing and communications 2

Advice/general information 2

None 74

Don’t know 2

Q19: Thinking about the help you said yourorganisation would benefit from, howwilling, if at all, do you think you might be topay for any of that help?

SINGLE CODE %

Very willing 6

Fairly willing 31

Not very willing 27

Not at all willing 22

Don’t know 14

Base: All organisations that would benefit from help (375)

43


Q20: Is your organisation able to deliver its services or support to the standard you believeis required…?

SINGLE CODE %

All of the time 44

Most of the time 46

Some of the time 8

Never 1

Don’t know 1

Q21: In which areas, if any, is your organisation lacking the capacity or resources it needs tomeet its main objectives?

MULTICODE %

Financial reserves 26

Overall level of income from all sources 23

Volunteers 21

Paid staff 16

Networking opportunities 13

Advice and support 12

Space to operate (e.g. office space) 11

Information and communication technology 9

Business support and back office services such as HR or payroll 8

Management and leadership staff 7

Trustees/management committee members 5

Training 2

Transport/a vehicle -

Other 5

None of these 25

Don’t know 5

44


Q22: Has your organisation experienced any difficulty over the last year or so in accessingthe support you need or not?

SINGLE CODE %

Yes 35

No 65

Don’t know -

Q23: What type of support have you had difficulty accessing?

MULTICODE %

Finance and funding 74

Support to improve your performance or quality of services 11

Volunteers 10

Venues/property/space to work from/accommodation for meetings 5

Training 5

Information/advice/access to clear guidance 3

Trustees, management committees and governance 2

Recruitment and training of paid staff 2

Marketing 2

Support from/working with other charities/community centres 2

Other 9

Don’t know -

Base: All organisations that have experienced difficulty in accessing the support they need over the last year (175)

45


Q24: Has the demand for your organisation’s service increased/decreased or remainedunchanged in the last 12 months?

SINGLE CODE %

Increased 57

Decreased 7

No change 33

Don’t know 2

Q25: What percentage of your organisation’s overall service has been affected by fundingcuts in the last 12 months?

SINGLE CODE %

1-9% 3

10-19% 6

20-29% 8

30-39% 4

40-49% 2

50-59% 7

60-69% 3

70-79% 3

80-89% 2

90-99% 1

100% 8

None 39

Don’t know 15

Mean 49

Base: 483 respondents

46


Q26: Are you confident of your organisation’s future for the following periods?

SINGLE CODE For the next For the next For the next For the next 3 months (%) 6 to 12 months (%) 1 to 3 years (%) 5 years (%)

Yes 94 81 58 45

No 5 13 24 26

Don’t know 1 6 17 29

Base: 483 respondents

Q27: In which of the following areas do you think that the cuts will have a significant impact?

SINGLE CODE %

The ability to deliver 55

Beneficiaries 54

Staff 50

The ability to continue operating 48

Don’t know 24

47


Q28: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about BVSC?

Strongly agree 36 32 30 36 34

Tend to agree 33 38 38 38 39

Neither agree nor disagree 9 10 10 8 7

Tend to disagree 3 6 5 4 4

Strongly disagree 3 3 3 3 3

Don’t know 16 11 15 12 13

Agree 69 70 68 73 73

Disagree 6 9 8 7 7

Net agree +63 +61 +60 +66 +67

SINGLE CODE

BVSCencourages

activecitizenship asa champion for

voluntaryaction (%)

BVSCprovidesaccessiblesupport andresource forthe third

sector and itspartners (%)

BVSC enablesan influentialthird sectoras a force for

positivechange (%)

BVSCpromotes thework and

achievementsof the widerthird sector

(%)

BVSCrepresents

andcommunicatesthird sectorviews andissues (%)

Birmingham Voluntary Service Council138 DigbethBirminghamB5 6DR

Telephone: 0121 643 4343

www.bvsc.orgBirmingham Voluntary Service Council (BVSC) is a registered charity, charity number218795, and a company limited by guarantee without share capital, number 421688

November 2012

Thanks to the following organisations forallowing us to reproduce their photographs:

Birmingham City Council www.birmingham.gov.uk

Sport 4 Lifewww.sport4life.org.uk

Change Kitchenchangekitchen.co.uk

Switch Radiowww.switchradio.co.uk

St Basilswww.stbasils.org.uk

Birmingham St Mary’s Hospicewww.bsmh.org.uk

Entawww.entapeople.com

Written, designed and

produced by The Bridge Group

. www.bridge-group

.co.uk

Documents

state of the sector third - BVSC · of BVSC by Ipsos MORI state of the... 2011-2012 sectorthird. 2 bvsc - state of the third sector ... and allows public sector agencies, donors,