VCS Conference

Workshop 1: Demonstrating Impact

How do we tell our funders and the public how good we are?

23 November 2017

Presenting Team

Cllr Matthew Morrow (MM)

Pauline O’Hare (POH)

Jane Selman(JS)

Welcome and Introductions by Cllr Matt Morrow

POH from Metro GAVS:

·  Spoke about the language of ‘Outcomes’ and reiterated the fact that most funders are now Outcomes’ focussed;

·  Stated that organisations need to know what to refer to (from their Aims & Objectives) when making funding applications as waffle can be off-putting;

·  Organisations need to know the information relevant for their services;

·  They need to know how any required data is going to be collected; and

·  Stated that MetroGAVS also use the CES for updates etc re Outcomes.

POH defined the meaning of ‘Impact’ and mentioned the training courses MetroGAVS have coming up.

JS introduced 5 Types of Data for Assessing Impact:

·  User Data (who/where from/age/ethnicity);

·  Engagement Data;

·  Feedback Data;

·  Outcomes’ Data;

·  Impact Data

JS added that, where bids are concerned, organisations MUST use critical friends to oversee their bids before sending them in. The critical friends should be those who have experience of writing and/or assessing bids, unbiased and in a position to flag-up things which may have been overlooked, as well as able to add in current buzz words etc where necessary.

JS further stated that collecting data can be daunting but data collection and data monitoring needs:

·  To be proportional;

·  Timely and relevant;

·  To show how the organisation helps its beneficiaries;

·  To provide accountability (show what’s being done for/by/to….);

·  Case studies should be expertly written and include relevant data, manipulated by the writer to report the necessary statistics and show how they incorporate public health and well-being in their service delivery;

JS further stated:

·  Specifications and applications should be written in easy-to-understand English, reminding attendees of their critical friends;

·  Appropriate words should be used;

·  Signposted attendees to GCAB’s Social Impact Report as a model of good practice.

Her Centre’s CEO stated that the organisation has several accreditations but is aware that, although specified as a funding requirement, there are many funded organisations which do not have any yet. She is also frustrated that they are monitored but unaware of what is done with the information gathered and wants to know where the information goes.

A representative from SMCC stated that they’d like to know why they send in monitoring as they haven’t any feedback in over a year.

Another organisation wants the next Council-funding process to have clear instructions, relevant questions and the offer of feedback if applications aren’t successful.

JS responded that this was a fantastic opportunity to get things right, be consistent, help with forward-planning and inform decision-makers.

The representative from Greenwich Street Pastors (not Council-funded) stated that they use volunteers for their street surveys and do not retain any paperwork because of confidentiality issues. POH advised that they liaise with the Samaritans to ascertain what they do, and how, as they are similar organisations.

Andy Church interjected that his organisation had taken up the offer of help with their last application and had received useful feedback.

The RNIB’s representative knows someone who does excellent work in the borough but how is crime prevention in schools/borstals measured? POH responded that not everything can be measured – use available statistics, e.g., Census data etc. Another organisation added that the key thing is how questions are asked and suggested using ‘prompting’ questions, for example ‘Having attended this course, will you still walk with a knife?’ or ‘Having attended this course, will you think twice before using the knife you walk with?’ as these could provide the answers being looked for.

Metro’s CEO stated that organisations are often diverted from what they want to deliver to what the funder wants but this is where conversations and relationships come in to play.

GAP’s CEO stated that the organisations and RBG will need to co-produce future funding initiatives; Judy Smith added that many funders are reducing their criteria and becoming more specific

JS went on to talk about funders’ decision-making and that the following are often taken into account:

·  Where is the organisation? (Geographical slant);

·  Organisations’ Reserves;

·  Inconsistencies in the bid (cross-reference accurately)

F@G’s representative asked if funding assessors were trained. JS replied:

·  All must be adequately trained

·  Assessors must be on-the-ball;

·  Most funders ask for management costs as well as Audited Accounts; and

·  Unit costs (where appropriate) and Full Absorption Costing is a MUST.

3