Introduction
Funding for mentoring
and befriending
Impact of spending cuts on the survival and
sustainability of projects across the UK
Funding survey 2011
MBF Funding survey report 2011
1
Headlines
72% of projects feel that the spending cuts are likely to have an impact on their project
during the next financial year (April 2011 – March 2012) compared to 44% in 2010-11.
62% of projects saw a greater demand for their service from users over the last financial
year. Next year this is set to increase with 79% anticipating greater demand for their
services.
40% of projects expect to have to make staff cuts in 2011-12 with 26% anticipating
reducing the number of service users they support.
53% of projects anticipate an increase in volunteer applications to their project over the
next financial year.
73% of projects said that they thought having a quality standard for their project
strengthened their application or opportunity to gain funding.
In response to the cuts, projects are developing a number of strategies which include new
approaches to fundraising, exploring alternative sources of funding, improving outcomes
monitoring, increased partnership working and raising awareness of their project through
increased marketing and promotion.
“I do worry that the way things
are going, there are going to be
a lot more vulnerable children,
young people and families who
will receive far less support
than before”
Mentoring project working with young
people at risk of offending
MBF Funding survey report 2011
2
Contents
Introduction
4
Summary findings
5
Comparison of findings
7
Full report findings:
8
-
Funding information: running costs, funding received and unit costs
Impact of spending cuts and changed funding climate
Impact on service users and volunteers
Quality standards and relationships with funders
Main challenges facing projects in an uncertain funding climate
Strategies for responding to these challenges including fundraising
Good practice tips
Further support and training needs
Conclusion
Appendices
-
8
9
10
10
11
13
15
17
18
Appendix 1: Mentoring summary
Appendix 2: Befriending summary
Appendix 3: Survey data
MBF Funding survey report 2011
19
21
23
3
Introduction
2010 saw the government introduce the biggest
planned spending cuts in the UK for decades and
in this, our third report in our annual series of
funding surveys, we asked mentoring and
befriending projects about the implications and
impact of the cuts – both as they are affecting
them now and how they see them affecting them in
the future.
We invited mentoring and befriending projects to
complete an online survey during February and
March 2011 and responses came back from 144
projects working with a wide range of client groups.
future sustainability of mentoring and befriending
projects.
Note: the survey data was analysed to show the
results from both mentoring and befriending
projects separately so that we could identify
differences and trends between the two
approaches. A combined average was also
calculated to show the overall picture which is in
general the figure used in this report unless
otherwise specified.
The data tables in the Appendices on pages 23-28
illustrate this data breakdown.
The views that projects share with us help us to
expand our knowledge of the funding environment
facing mentoring and befriending projects, year on
year. This enables MBF and others to better
respond to the information and support needs of
projects.
This year‟s survey also asked projects to share
with us some elements of good practice around
funding and fundraising activity which we hope will
provide a useful source of information for other
projects facing similar funding challenges.
For the first time, this year‟s survey was promoted
to mentoring and befriending projects working
across the UK (not just in England). The following
organisations kindly promoted the survey to their
networks – Scottish Mentoring Network,
Befriending Network Scotland, WCVA (voice of the
voluntary sector in Wales) and Volunteer Now (a
leading volunteering organisation in Northern
Ireland).
We would like to thank all the organisations and
projects that gave their time to both promote and
complete the survey – all their experiences and
funding information will help us to support the
MBF Funding survey report 2011
4
Summary findings
Funding information
Most mentoring and befriending projects support
between 25 and 50 volunteers and provide a
service to more than 50 service users annually.
The length of time projects have been running
reveals that just over half of all projects (51%)
have been running for longer than five years with
29% running for between two and five years and
11% for less than a year.
Funding received
Most projects receive their main source of funding
from a local authority (32%) followed closely by
projects funded from a charitable trust/lottery
(26%). Fewer projects receive their main funding
from donations (6%), the private sector (4%) and
from an NHS Trust / PCT (3%). The level of
funding received by the majority of projects (46%)
is up to £25,000 per year with another quarter
(26%) receiving between £25,000 and £50,000 per
year.
Unit costs
Of those projects that have calculated a unit cost
for their service (the total cost of supporting one
service user) a wide cost range was identified, this
was not surprising as services differ in the level of
support offered and delivery methods used. Unit
costs for projects working with older people ranged
from £80 to £900 per service user and projects
working with offenders and those at risk of
offending ranged from £120 to £4000.
Impact of spending cuts and
changed funding environment
Just under half of projects (44%) said that the
introduction of spending cuts by the government
had an impact on them during the last financial
year (April 2010 - March 2011). However this
figure increases to 72% of projects who feel that
the cuts will have an impact on them during the
current financial year (April 2011 - March 2012).
MBF Funding survey report 2011
Just under a third (32%) have made cuts to their
project as a result of spending cuts during the last
financial year with 87% of these projects making
staff cuts, 48% reducing the number of service
users supported and 39% reducing their number of
volunteers.
Looking ahead, 40% of projects anticipate having
to make staff cuts over the next financial year with
26% anticipating reducing the number of service
users they support. Overall, 44% of projects expect
their situation to worsen over the next financial
year with 14% predicting it will improve.
Many projects expressed deep concern that if they
are unable to secure funding then the beneficiaries
and volunteers of many services will suffer a
severe blow leading to a detrimental impact on
society as a whole. This view was shared by
projects working across all ages and client groups.
Projects also say that there is a growing
expectation that projects will need to do more with
less money.
Impact on users and volunteers
Sixty two per cent of projects saw a greater
demand for their service from service users over
the last financial year and 79% anticipate greater
demand in the coming financial year. Forty four
percent saw an increase in volunteer applications
to their service over the last financial year with
53% anticipating seeing more volunteer
applications in the current financial year.
Quality standards and
relationship with funders
Almost three quarters of projects surveyed (73%)
said that they thought having a quality standard for
their project strengthened their application or
opportunity to obtain funding. Of the projects
surveyed, the most popular quality standards they
5
Summary findings
have obtained are as follows: 63% have achieved
the MBF Approved Provider Standard (APS), 23%
have achieved Investors in People and 10% have
Investing in Volunteers.
Around half (48%) of projects rate the level of
understanding and awareness of mentoring and
befriending by their main funder as either „good‟ or
„excellent‟. There is some evidence of changes in
demands being made by funders as 56% of
projects tell us that they have seen an increase in
demand to provide evidence of outcomes, 28%
see an increased demand for partnership working
and 24% see an increase in demand for social
impact reporting from funders.
Main challenges facing projects
in an uncertain funding climate
The most pressing problem that projects tell us
they face in this uncertain funding environment is
the severe impact that spending cuts are having on
them. Many tell us that they are closing due to
complete loss of funding while others are using
their reserves in order to survive in the short term.
This is felt to be due largely to there being less
funding available from local authorities and
charitable trusts as well as the growing competition
for funds.
A substantial knock on effect from this is the
inability to plan long-term due to funding
uncertainty and projects feel that this impacts
severely on their future sustainability.
Another trend identified by many projects is that
staff are managing a higher number of
relationships which leads to less time available for
other work. Some projects are re-prioritising and
offering their service to fewer service users than
before. There is also a feeling by some projects
that they are increasingly unable to support those
who are most vulnerable.
Another significant problem is the loss of many
projects‟ partner organisations through the cuts
leading to impact on referrals, ability to signpost
users on and a reduction in the number of other
support networks.
Strategies for responding to
these challenges
Projects are developing strategies to deal with
these issues which include increased partnership
and collaborative working; more business
planning; reviewing costs; restructuring, reducing
or developing services in new ways; increased
trading; more fundraising and promotional
activities.
Good practice tips
Projects shared a range of good practice tips
around developing new approaches to fundraising,
successful fundraising activities, working with
volunteers and service users and impact
measurement. You can read all their suggestions
on pages 15 to 16.
Read the report’s full findings on pages 8 to 18.
Challenges are also being faced by projects
needing to retain staff in the face of budget cuts
while keeping morale and motivation high. This is
proving difficult when staff have no certainty over
their future employment. Many projects are also
facing challenges with their volunteer management
and are offering less support and reducing
numbers.
MBF Funding survey report 2011
6
Comparison of findings
We have undertaken a comparison of this year‟s
funding survey responses with those we received
last year to identify any significant changes in
responses. We recognise that it is difficult to
compare year on year but the following reveal a
few interesting facts:
Although the majority of projects still have
annual running costs of less than £25,000,
more befriending projects told us this year
that their annual running costs are higher
between £25,000 and £50,000 (39%) as
opposed to 28% last year.
The main source of funding for most
projects is still from local authorities
although this percentage is down on last
year – from 46% to 32%. There is an
increase in projects receiving their main
funding from a charitable trust/lottery – up
from 22% last year to 26% this year.
Similarly, 39% of projects in this year‟s
survey reduced their volunteer numbers
compared with 3% last year. Whereas no
projects surveyed last year had merged,
4% of projects had this year.
Numbers of projects expecting their
situation to worsen over the next financial
year increased to 44% this year compared
with 30% of projects in the last survey.
The trend which we saw last year showing
increased demand for the service from
users continues to rise with a figure of 62%
this year compared with 58% last year.
Some changes to projects‟ additional
sources of funding show that last year 31%
of projects got this through fundraising
activities whereas this has increased to
41% this year. Also, trading accounts for
8% of additional sources of funding
compared with just 2% last year.
The cuts made by projects in this financial
year are substantially greater than shown
in last year‟s survey with 87% making staff
cuts this year as compared with 16% last
year. Again, 48% reduced the number of
clients they supported this year in
comparison with just 7% in last year‟s
survey.
MBF Funding survey report 2011
7
Full report findings
See the Appendices on pages 23-28 for all data.
both mentoring and befriending projects totalling
costs of over £500,000.
Funding information
Profile of projects surveyed
Overall, 144 mentoring and befriending projects
responded to our third annual survey, split evenly
between mentoring (51%) and befriending (49%)
projects and supporting over 16 diverse client
groups ranging from older, socially isolated people
to looked after children and young people to
individuals with a mental health problem and
students in educational settings. For the first time,
our survey reached out to projects working in or
across all four countries of the UK and the
breakdown of projects who responded was: 92% of
projects are working in England, 10% in Scotland,
7% in Wales and 4% in Northern Ireland. We hope
to build on this in future surveys.
Most mentoring and befriending projects support
between 25 and 50 volunteers and provide a
service to more than 50 service users annually.
The length of time projects have been running
shows that 51% have been running for longer than
5 years with 29% running for between two and five
years, 11% for less than a year and 9% for
between one and two years.
Running costs
We asked projects about their annual running
costs and the survey shows that overall 40% of
projects have annual running costs of up to
£25,000. However there is some variation between
mentoring and befriending projects with 48% of
mentoring projects fitting into this category
compared with 32% of befriending projects. A
higher number of befriending projects (39%) have
annual running costs of between £25,000 and
£50,000 with 26% of mentoring in this category.
Sixteen per cent of mentoring projects receive
between £100,000 and £250,000 with just 2% of
MBF Funding survey report 2011
Funding received
Just under a third of all projects (32%) receive their
main source of funding from a local authority, just
over a quarter from a charitable trust/lottery (26%),
6% from donations, 4% from the private sector and
3% from an NHS Trust/PCT. The amount of main
funding received by the majority of projects (46%)
is from £1 to £25,000 with around a quarter (26%)
receiving between £25,000 and £50,000.
Most projects (38%) state that their main source of
funding is for one year, 20% receive it for three
years and 18% for less than one. As well as their
main source of funding, the most common
additional sources of funding are from donations
(56%), fundraising activities (41%), charitable
trust/lottery (33%), local authority (30%), NHS
Trust/PCT (10%) and trading activities (8%).
We asked projects that receive local/central
government funding (37%) to tell us what
proportion of this funding contributes to their
overall total funding. Forty four per cent receive
100% from local/central government funding, 15%
receive between 90-99%,16% between 40-59%
and 24% between 1-20%.
Unit costs
We asked projects that have calculated a unit cost
to share this with us. Not surprisingly, we found a
wide range of unit costs depending on the client
group, intensity and level of support offered and
delivery methods used. Unit costs from projects
working with older people ranged from £80 to £900
per service user, projects supporting looked after
children ranged between £400 to £500, projects
based within educational settings were calculated
as being as low as £5 to £600 and projects
working with offenders and those at-risk of
offending ranged from £120 to £4000.
8
Impact of spending cuts and changed funding climate
Impact of spending cuts and
changed funding climate
We asked projects whether the spending cuts had
made an impact on them during the last financial
year (April 2010 - March 2011) and there was a
fairly even response to this with 44% saying that
they had, 52% saying that they hadn‟t and 4% that
they did not know.
However, when asked if they felt the spending cuts
were likely to have an impact on their project
during the next financial year (April 2011 - March
2012), then 72% of projects said yes, 15% said no
and 13% did not know.
reducing the number of volunteers used and 10%
looking to merge with another organisation.
When asked about the possibility of their project
expanding over the next financial year, 45% did
not anticipate this. Of those that did think
expansion likely, 45% anticipated an increased
number of clients supported, 40% an increase in
their volunteers and 13% an increase in staff.
Forty four percent of projects expected their
situation to worsen over the next financial year,
43% felt it would stay the same and 14% of
projects felt their situation would improve.
Of those projects that receive statutory funding,
31% had their funding cut during the last financial
year and 38% stated that their funding level had
stayed the same during this period. For others it
was the first time that they had received statutory
funding.
Just under a third (32%) of projects have made
cuts to their project as a result of spending cuts
during the last financial year and of these, 87%
have made staff cuts, 48% reduced the number of
clients they support, 39% reduced the number of
volunteers they utilise and 4% have merged with
another organisation.
Of the 68% of projects who did not have to make
any cuts, 51% had not experienced any project
expansion. However 38% had increased the
number of clients they support, 34% had increased
their number of volunteers used and 11% had
increased their staff.
Asked about the likelihood of cuts over the next
financial year (April 2011 - March 2012), 46% of
projects felt that no cuts were likely. Of the 54%
that did think cuts were likely, 40% were
anticipating having to make staff cuts, 26% looking
to reduce the number of clients supported, 22%
MBF Funding survey report 2011
“As far as my projects are
concerned and unless the cavalry
make a last minute appearance at
the top of the hill, it may be a case
of “Goodnight Vienna” and for the
last one to leave the building to turn
out the lights!”
Mentoring project working with those
at risk of offending
9
Impact on service users | Quality standards and relationships with funders
Impact on service users and
volunteers
Quality standards and
relationships with funders
Sixty two per cent of projects saw a greater
demand for their service from users over the last
financial year (April 2010 - March 2011) with just
2% seeing less demand and 37% seeing no
change. Looking to the current financial year (April
2011 - March 2012), 79% of projects anticipate
that they will see greater demand from service
users with just 4% anticipating less demand and
18% seeing no change.
Almost three quarters of projects (73%) said that
they thought having a quality standard for their
project strengthened their application or
opportunity to obtain funding, 5% didn‟t think that it
did and 23% didn‟t know what the impact of having
a quality standard was.
An increase in volunteer applications was seen by
44% of projects over the last financial year with
46% seeing no change. Projects anticipate that in
the current financial year, 53% will receive more
applications, 9% will receive fewer applications
and 38% foresee no change.
Of the projects surveyed, 63% have achieved the
Approved Provider Standard (APS), 23% have
achieved Investors in People, 10% Investing in
Volunteers, 8% PQASSO, 6% Matrix and 21% of
projects do not have any quality standards.
When asked to rate their main funder‟s level of
understanding and awareness of mentoring and
befriending, 48% of projects rated it as either
„good‟ or „excellent‟, 37% rated it as „quite good‟
and 15% as either „poor‟ or „very poor‟.
We also asked whether projects had seen an
increase in demand from funders across a number
of areas and 56% had seen in increase in demand
for providing evidence of outcomes, 28% had seen
an increased demand for partnership working, 24%
in more social impact reporting, 5% through
payment by results and 2% an increase in
promoting their funders‟ profile. Overall, 41% had
seen no change in their funders‟ demands.
“Demand is increasing because
befriending is now recognised by others
as very helpful, and because of cuts in
health service provision”
Befriending project working with people
with mental health problems
MBF Funding survey report 2011
10
Main challenges facing projects in an uncertain funding climate
Main challenges facing
projects in an uncertain
funding climate
The survey asked projects to identify the top
issues or challenges that they face around funding
or spending cuts. The most frequently expressed
are shown below:
1. Funding levels and statutory cuts
The survey showed the full impact of the current
funding climate with several projects telling us that
they are closing due to complete loss of funding
and others that are currently using their reserves to
ensure survival in the short-term yet uncertain as
to whether they will gain more funding to continue.
For those projects that are managing to survive,
one of the major implications of facing reduced
levels of funding or cuts is being unable to plan
long-term which threatens their overall
sustainability and the opportunities that they are
able to take forward. Many projects mentioned the
challenge of facing greater competition in seeking
funding, of which there is less available.
a) Local authority cuts: projects stated that
overall there is less funding available from
local authorities with some services being
reduced or cut which is having a knock-on
effect on them. Some projects are also
seeing increasing targets even though
their resources have been cut. This is
often combined with high expectations and
pressure to plug the gaps left by stretched
statutory services.
Another trend mentioned by a number of
projects was that some local authorities
seem unsure about their own budgets or
unclear about how they are going to
distribute the money or how to utilise
services such as befriending. There was
MBF Funding survey report 2011
also some fear expressed about the threat
and likelihood of being undercut by a
larger organisation as local authorities look
to buy in services.
b) Education cuts: those projects that work
within the educational sector highlighted to
us some specific challenges that they are
experiencing. This includes the spending
cuts to university funding combined with a
higher expectation that Higher Education
institutes will fund mentoring and
befriending work from their own resources
in future. It was also felt by several
projects that budget cuts to schools will
threaten the future of projects.
c) Health cuts: several projects mentioned
the impact that the large-scale NHS
reforms are having and the uncertainty of
NHS funding for the future leading to an
inability to mainstream due to the
uncertainty of commissioning within health
and social care services.
2. Charitable Trusts and Foundations funding
Projects highlighted the changing climate around
applying to charitable trusts and foundations with
several experiencing a greater number of
unsuccessful applications due to greater
competition. Also, a number of projects recognise
that trusts are overstretched financially themselves
and are reducing their grant availability – possibly
due to the current low interest rates that exist due
to weak economic recovery. Also, that fewer trusts
want to fund continuation work and wish to support
new projects.
3. Forward planning and sustainability
A knock on effect of the uncertain funding climate
is that projects face greater uncertainty over their
future and are finding it difficult or impossible to
plan ahead. One project talked about having to
11
Main challenges facing projects in an uncertain funding climate
„firefight‟ rather than commit to long-term planning
and another faces a dilemma over whether to start
a new partnership due to lack of future
sustainability.
A few projects mentioned the time that it takes to
complete bids resulting in a challenge to undertake
other work plus an increasing amount of time and
resource is spent fundraising than was previously
necessary which diverts staff resources away from
service provision.
4. Retention of staff and volunteers
Projects are facing new challenges around
retaining staff in the face of budget cuts. Working
under threat of redundancy is faced by many
workers leading to staff insecurity causing specific
challenges for project managers in keeping morale
high and motivating staff who may be facing
uncertainty about their employment.
Another trend is an increasing number of projects
feeling the pressure to take on more work and
increase their client base while reducing costs.
It is also noted that some projects are finding it
difficult to recruit volunteers and others have lost
valuable and well-trained volunteers due to them
being made redundant from work and having to
relocate or spend more time looking for new work.
Many projects are offering less support to their
volunteers than before and cutting down on the
number they use due to the cuts.
The cost of activities for young people and
volunteers is proving prohibitive for some projects
while others are creating more rigid outcomes for
volunteers to help cope with budget restraints.
5. Supporting service users
Several projects are faced with not being able to
offer as many relationships in the next financial
year yet are seeing increased demand from clients
due to reduced statutory services.
MBF Funding survey report 2011
Some projects are re-prioritising and only offering
their service to high-priority service users. A
project working with homeless people predicts
increased demand due to increased
homelessness. Many projects feel that they are
increasingly unable to support those who are most
vulnerable.
6. Impact of cuts in other organisations
A consistent message that came through was the
impact of the reduction in partnership working
through cuts being made to other agencies and
organisations. Also, where projects exist within
larger organisations and where cuts have been
made this is having an impact on referrals.
There is also concern at the loss of networks and
partnership goodwill as well as a lack of
appropriate specialist agencies to refer on to.
7. Training and quality standards
Several projects told us that they haven‟t enough
money to attend courses such as the ones that
MBF run and overall have less money for training
staff and volunteers. With less funding, training
may prove more difficult and inadequate training
may affect the standard of the service provided.
Another project mentioned that a particular
challenge for them is to ensure that funding is
available to enable them to work towards the
Approved Provider Standard.
8. Communicating impact
Challenges around communicating the impact of
their project effectively are being felt and included
comments about the most effective ways of
evidencing outcomes from outputs and in particular
the evidencing soft outcomes to funders. A
growing number of projects are also looking to find
out more about undertaking cost benefit analysis
and service evaluation as part of improving their
overall approach to impact communication.
12
Strategies for responding to challenges
Strategies for responding to
challenges
We asked projects to tell us about any strategies
or plans that they are implementing to help them
respond to this challenging funding environment.
The following are some of the strategies that are
being put in place which may be useful for other
projects facing similar challenges:
Increased partnership and collaborative
working in order to access a larger client
base, to combine volunteer efforts and to
share back office services. Increasing
support to other agencies to help them
protect their funding streams was also
mentioned by one project.
Exploring merger with other
organisations has been found necessary
for some projects in order to secure
funding and has been seen as useful for
sharing resources, contacts and crossreferrals.
Business planning is an increasing
activity for many projects as well as
accessing free business advice.
Reviewing costs is another key strategy
for projects as they look to scrutinise their
spending with a view to making efficiencies
and cutting expenditure.
Restructuring has been a necessity for
several projects including a review of job
descriptions with a view to possibly making
redundancies and scaling back service
provision. Some projects are looking at
changing volunteer roles and the
opportunities they offer as well as looking
for more voluntary input in general. Others
are looking to develop their service in new
MBF Funding survey report 2011
ways and increase their range e.g., one
project is targeting GP practice managers
to try and embed their service within social
care provision.
Charging – several projects are
considering charging for their service in the
future which has previously and
traditionally been free. This is seen as
particularly challenging for befriending
projects in terms of making the project
attractive from a demand point of view as
well as making it acceptable to volunteers
who give their time freely.
Trading and fundraising - one project is
selling their training to others and another
is looking to extend their social enterprise
into new areas. Increased fundraising
activities through events, applying for more
grants and diversifying income streams.
Marketing and promotion – attracting
new service users and those from a
different demographic is seen as important
plus greater involvement in the local
community to gain community support. It
was recommended that a strategy should
be prepared for this activity.
Good internal communication was
highlighted by one project which has found
improving links with senior managers and
those making strategy an important
element for future sustainability.
New ways of working (direct payments and
cost benefit analysis)
We also wanted to find out the extent to which
mentoring and befriending projects are
experiencing or dealing with direct payments or
personal budgets as these are policies that are
being encouraged by recent government policy.
13
Strategies for responding to challenges
Around a fifth of projects (19%) told us that they
had some experience in this area.
When asked if they had done any cost benefit
analysis (e.g., putting costs to outputs and
measuring against other services), 54% of projects
said they have not, 11% said they have and17%
are planning to do so over the next year. Thirty one
per cent of projects would like to but need further
advice and guidance.
a social enterprise, increasing their
applications to charitable trusts and getting
more involved with corporates and
researching potential sponsorship from
commercial sources. Developing service
specific funding approaches is an
approach being made by one project.
Volunteers
Sixty eight per cent of projects have engaged in
new collaboration/partnership working over the last
financial year, 36% have involved users in
designing services, 21% have started to share
back-office services and 11% have merged with
another organisation.
One project is putting a plan together to
encourage their volunteers to raise funds
from their local communities and a school
project is encouraging their pupils to
fundraise. Another is working with potential
volunteers who have a background in
fundraising or corporate entertainment to
help them become more robust.
Fundraising change of focus
Time, resources and planning
Projects were also asked in what ways they
thought their fundraising activity might change or
alter focus over the next financial year.
It is generally acknowledged that
fundraising will take more time for smaller
returns and this will either lead to a
reduction in the service being offered or
see expansion of a project which aims to
provide additional services alongside the
mentoring or befriending service. One
project is aware that they will need to
spend more time on research to ensure
that they find out about new funding
streams. Also, greater planning and
innovation will be called for so that projects
can stand out in the competitive
environment. Significant reductions are
likely and the need to keep abreast of new
developments in health and other policy
areas is vital. Prioritising those who are
most vulnerable will be key.
Increase in fundraising activity
A re-allocation of budgets for some
projects will be essential as fundraising
becomes a larger part of their activity.
Some projects are keen to look at how
they can support a fundraising salary. It is
strongly felt that fundraising will be
increased in all its forms to ensure
sustainability and development. The
importance of maintaining a high profile is
seen as an important element of this.
Generating income
More projects will focus on generating their
own income to reduce reliance on the
overall amount required from funders.
Some projects are looking at charging for
their services and in particular looking at
how this will work with individual personal
budgets. Others are looking into becoming
MBF Funding survey report 2011
“To be unable to secure funding will be a
massive blow to the beneficiaries and
volunteers of our service”
Befriending project working with people with
mental health problems
14
Good practice tips
Good practice tips
We asked projects to offer some good practice tips
to other projects around working with funders,
volunteers and service users, fundraising activity,
and impact measurement.
their money will benefit local people and
communities.
Setting up a social enterprise is also an increasing
element of fundraising activity for projects with one
befriending scheme now providing domestic help
to clients at a charge.
Funder relationships
“Ensure that you are working to good practice and
try to meet all your funders‟ requirements as well
as adapting to any change of requirements as well
as submitting reports in a timely fashion.”
“Look at developing your service through adding
new strands and additional services. This can
provide funders with something „new‟ and
potentially open up other sources of funding.”
“Be flexible and look at ways in which you can
work smarter (SMART goals stand for specific,
measurable, achievable, realistic and time).”
“Build up your service gradually year on year – it is
better to provide a great service to a few rather
than a poor service to many.”
“Market your successes.”
Fundraising
Build a new fundraising approach
Projects recommend being flexible, looking at all
options and alternative sources of funding. This
includes having a range of funders so that you are
not reliant on just one source. If possible, applying
for funds that give three year funding terms can act
as a buffer from cuts in the future.
There is also a renewed focus on community
fundraising such as supermarket bag packing and
targeting funders at a local level to outline how
MBF Funding survey report 2011
One project found that fundraising for a unit cost
focuses people‟s thinking and donors want to know
that their money is having a defined effect.
Another project was keen to stress that projects
should have respect and understanding for the
difficult position that many commissioners and
funders currently find themselves in.
Successful fundraising activities
Some examples of specific fundraising that
projects have found worked well are as follows:
a charity dinner at a local hotel;
a school negotiated free training
workshops with a local children‟s
bereavement service and in return they ran
a fundraising event to raise money for the
service;
sponsored bike rides and walks with
approaches made to organisations such as
tesco and halfords for sponsorship;
forging links with business;
small-scale fundraising such as raffles.
Applications and bids
Although recognised as time consuming, several
projects have applied to more funders than usual
asking for smaller amounts. General advice from
projects is that you need to increase your funding
applications to new sources.
Advice is also to very carefully consider the criteria
for each application you make and ensure that
your project completely meets it as this will avoid
spending time drafting applications which won‟t get
past the first post.
15
Good practice tips
Investing in a part-time fundraiser is the answer for
some projects and one has contracted a
professional bids writer which they found useful.
A tip from another project is to always ensure that
when applying to grant making trusts, they meet at
least one service user so that they get a sound
idea of what the service does.
Apply to local charities for a specific aspect of your
project that only requires small scale funding.
Outcomes and evidence
Projects have found it helpful to solidify their
approach to outcomes and evidence in order to
stand a better chance of a successful funding bid.
The provision of good evidence including case
studies, hard evidence, personal stories and
experiences, visual evidence and external
evaluation has helped improve credibility with
funders.
Raising awareness and profile
Event fundraising is found by many projects to be
important in helping to raise public awareness of
the work they do.
from clients on why the service has been useful for
them.”
“To reduce the amount of people receiving the
service, be more selective and respond to higher
level need.”
Impact measurement
Produce an Impact Assessment of your
service which gives clarity on who the
beneficiaries are and what impact the
service has upon them. For one project
this allowed them to understand how to
make better use of their data gathering to
provide good evidence of outcomes and
impact to funders. Ensure your impact is
evaluated financially.
One project told us that by completing the
Approved Provider Standard quality
standard process, it helped them to
demonstrate the extent of the positive
effect that the scheme was having.
Funders are interested in outcomes as
opposed to outputs and interested in
sustainability of the project so try to
evidence these aspects.
Volunteers and service users
“Support your mentors – meet regularly and give
them opportunities to feedback and share their
good practice.”
“Train your volunteers very well and provide
ongoing supervision.”
Enhance your evidence collection with
case studies and photographs. With
permission, use quotes from service users
in your advertising.
Continuous monitoring and evaluation and
use case studies to remind people of the
good news stories.
“Look at involving volunteers in running groups
which can make the service cheaper.”
“Ensure that your project meets the needs of your
clients – do regular surveys and obtain evidence
MBF Funding survey report 2011
16
Further support and training needs
Further support and training
needed
Three areas were most commonly identified by
projects as those where they needed more support
and training to cope with the changing
environment. These were:
Personalised budgets and payment by results
Projects urgently want help in understanding the
possibility arising from personalised budgets and
the impact of GP consortia. They also wanted
access to payment by results programmes and
Social Impact Bonds.
Evidence and outcomes
Projects specifically mentioned evidencing
outcomes from outputs, how to write case studies,
more information about cost benefit analysis,
service evaluation and more input on Impact.
-
-
advice and support to identify gaps and
plan for the future;
working out a budget for forthcoming
financial year and seeing where cuts could
be made;
one project requested a mentor.
Many projects also emphasised the
importance of having access to free support
and information due to their limited capacity to
spend on training. There was also support for
continued information about funding
opportunities and context through our ebulletin. In addition, projects wanted local
information about cuts and closures and how
to apply for jobs if their position was made
redundant.
Fundraising
Areas highlighted for support were training in
community based fundraising, tender writing
training, grant writing, developing alternative
funding sources and strategies.
Additional support needs
Some more general support needs were also
identified by individual projects and included:
- wanting to be part of a bigger lobbying
organisation which directly approaches
funders who might support specific
activities;
- support in gaining charity status and
governance documents;
- how to downsize from a full case load if
future funding not obtained;
- appropriate challenges to „big society‟
idea;
- networking events to share and learn from
other organisations doing similar work;
MBF Funding survey report 2011
17
Conclusion
This year‟s survey has highlighted strongly the
impact that spending cuts are having on the
mentoring and befriending sector with just
under half of all projects surveyed telling us
that spending cuts are having an impact with
around a third having made cuts to their
project already.
The concern for the beneficiaries and
volunteers of mentoring and befriending
services comes through loud and clear with
many projects expressing concern that as
more and more projects are squeezed and
unable to secure funding in the future, then the
impact on society will be immense.
However, it is not all doom and gloom as many
projects are continuing to survive by adapting
their services, reviewing expenditure and
looking for new ways to provide their services.
We want to support and encourage projects
through this difficult time and we hope the
good practice highlighted within this report will
support other projects.
“We will not be beaten, our
project has been recognised by
Ofsted and the county and we
will soldier on regardless. The
staff are very supportive and the
benefits to our school are
wonderful”
Peer mentoring school project
MBF Funding survey report 2011
18
Appendix 1: Mentoring summary
A summary of the survey responses made by
mentoring projects
Funding information
Most mentoring projects support between 25
and 50 volunteers and provide a service to
more than 50 service users annually. The
length of time projects have been running
reveals that 40% of mentoring projects have
been running for longer than five years with
39% running for between two and five years,
13% for between one and two years and 8%
for less than a year.
Funding received
Most mentoring projects receive their main
source of funding from a local authority (26%)
followed closely by projects funded from a
charitable trust/lottery (23%) and 10% from
central government. Fewer projects receive
their main funding from the private sector
(5%), donations (3%) and fundraising (3%).
The level of funding received by the majority of
projects (52%) is up to £25,000 per year with
just under a quarter (24%) receiving between
£25,000 and £50,000 per year.
Unit costs
Of those mentoring projects that have
calculated a unit cost for their service (the total
cost of supporting one service user) a wide
cost range was identified, this was not
surprising as services differ in the level of
support offered and delivery methods used. A
community mentoring project working with
socially isolated older people had a unit cost of
£350 and a business mentoring programme
with looked after young people was £400.
Mentoring projects in schools ranged from £5
to £600 projects working with those at risk of
offending ranged from £120 to £4000.
MBF Funding survey report 2011
Impact of spending cuts and a
changed funding climate
Just under half of mentoring projects (47%)
said that the introduction of spending cuts by
the government had an impact on them during
the last financial year (April 2010 - March
2011). However this figure increases to 72% of
69% of projects who feel that the cuts will have
an impact on them during the current financial
year (April 2011 - March 2012).
Just under a third (30%) have made cuts to
their project as a result of spending cuts during
the last financial year and of these 80% have
made staff cuts, 60% reduced the number of
service users supported and 40% reduced
their number of volunteers.
Looking ahead, 41% of projects anticipate
having to make staff cuts over the next
financial year with 23% anticipating reducing
the number of service users they support.
Overall, 47% of mentoring projects expect their
situation to worsen over the next financial year
with 14% predicting it will improve and 39%
that it will stay the same.
Many projects expressed deep concern that if
they are unable to secure funding then the
beneficiaries and volunteers of many services
will suffer a severe blow leading to a
detrimental impact on society as a whole. This
view was shared by projects working across all
ages and client groups. Projects also say that
there is a growing expectation that projects will
need to do more with less money.
19
Impact on users and volunteers
Funding strategies
Fifty five per cent of mentoring projects saw a
greater demand for their service from service
users over the last financial year and 73%
anticipate greater demand in the coming
financial year. Forty five per cent saw an
increase in volunteer applications to their
mentoring service over the last financial year
with 48% anticipating seeing more volunteer
applications in the current financial year.
We wanted to find out the extent to which
projects are experiencing or dealing with direct
payments or personal budgets and 16% of
mentoring projects have had some experience
in these areas. When asked if they had done
any cost benefit analysis (e.g., putting costs to
outputs and measuring against other services),
13% of projects have, 53% of projects have
not and 15% plan to undertake an analysis
over the next year. Twenty nine cent of
projects said that they would like to but would
need further advice and guidance.
Quality standards and relationship
with funders
Three quarters of projects surveyed (76%)
said that they thought having a quality
standard for their project strengthened their
application or opportunity to obtain funding. Of
the mentoring projects surveyed, the most
popular quality standards they have obtained
are as follows: 65% have achieved the MBF
Approved Provider Standard (APS), 28% have
achieved Investors in People, 12% have
Investing in Volunteers, 8% have PQASSO
and 6% have Matrix. Twenty two per cent of
mentoring projects surveyed do not have any
quality standards.
Seventy one per cent of mentoring projects
have engaged in new collaboration/partnership
working over the last financial year and 33%
have involved users in designing services,
24% have started to share back-office
services.
Just over half of projects (52%) rate the level
of understanding and awareness of mentoring
and befriending by their main funder as either
„good‟ or „excellent‟. There is some evidence
of changes in demands being made by funders
as 38% of projects tell us that they have seen
an increase in demand to provide evidence of
outcomes, 16% see an increased demand for
partnership working, 14% see an increase in
demand for social impact reporting and 4% in
promoting their funder‟s profile.
MBF Funding survey report 2011
20
Appendix 2: Befriending summary
A summary of the survey responses made by
befriending projects
Funding information
Most befriending projects support more than 50
volunteers and provide a service to more than 50
service users annually. The length of time projects
have been running reveals that 62% of befriending
projects have been running for longer than five
years with 19% running for between two and five
years, 6% for between one and two years and 13%
for less than a year.
Funding received
Most befriending projects receive their main source
of funding from a local authority (39%) followed by
those funded from a charitable trust/lottery (30%),
from donations (9%), from fundraising (7%). Fewer
projects receive their main funding from an NHS
Trust/PCT (5%) and the private sector (4%). The
level of funding received by the majority of projects
(39%) is up to £25,000 per year with just over a
quarter (27%) receiving between £25,000 and
£50,000 per year. Seventeen per cent receive
between £50,000 and £100,000 and 12% between
£100,000 and £250,000.
Unit costs
Of those befriending projects that have calculated
a unit cost for their service (the total cost of
supporting one service user) a wide cost range
was identified, this was not surprising as services
differ in the level of support offered and delivery
methods used. Projects working with socially
isolated older people had unit costs ranging from
£80 to £1000. Mental health befriending schemes
had unit costs of between £10 and 100, a
befriending project working with asylum seekers
calculated £100 and with disabled people a range
of between £20 and £900.
MBF Funding survey report 2011
Impact of spending cuts and a changed
funding climate
Forty per cent of befriending projects said that the
introduction of spending cuts by the government
had an impact on them during the last financial
year (April 2010 - March 2011). However this
figure increases to 75% of projects who feel that
the cuts will have an impact on them during the
current financial year (April 2011 - March 2012).
A third (33%) have made cuts to their project as a
result of spending cuts during the last financial
year and of these 92% have made staff cuts, 39%
reduced the number of service users supported
and 39% reduced their number of volunteers. Eight
per cent have merged with another organisation.
Looking ahead, 40% of projects anticipate having
to make staff cuts over the next financial year with
29% anticipating reducing the number of service
users they support. Overall, 40% of befriending
projects expect their situation to worsen over the
next financial year with 14% predicting it will
improve and 47% that it will stay the same.
Many projects expressed deep concern that if they
are unable to secure funding then the beneficiaries
and volunteers of many services will suffer a
severe blow leading to a detrimental impact on
society as a whole. This view was shared by
projects working across all ages and client groups.
Projects also say that there is a growing
expectation that projects will need to do more with
less money.
21
Impact on users and volunteers
Funding strategies
Sixty nine per cent of befriending projects saw a
greater demand for their service from service users
over the last financial year and 85% anticipate
greater demand in the coming financial year. Forty
three per cent saw an increase in volunteer
applications to their befriending service over the
last financial year with 58% anticipating seeing
more volunteer applications in the current financial
year.
We wanted to find out the extent to which projects
are experiencing or dealing with direct payments or
personal budgets and 23% of befriending projects
have had some experience in these areas. When
asked if they had done any cost benefit analysis
(e.g., putting costs to outputs and measuring
against other services), 9% of projects have, 54%
of projects have not and 20% plan to undertake an
analysis over the next year. Thirty three per cent of
projects said that they would like to but would need
further advice and guidance.
Quality standards and relationship with
funders
Around two thirds of projects (69%) said that they
thought having a quality standard for their project
strengthened their application or opportunity to
obtain funding. Of the befriending projects
surveyed, the most popular quality standards they
have obtained are as follows: 60% have achieved
the MBF Approved Provider Standard (APS), 19%
have achieved Investors in People, 8% have
Investing in Volunteers, 8% have PQASSO and
6% have Matrix. Twenty one per cent of
befriending projects surveyed do not have any
quality standards.
Sixty five per cent of befriending projects have
engaged in new collaboration/partnership working
over the last financial year and 39% have involved
users in designing services and 19% have started
to share back-office services.
Just under half of befriending projects (44%) rate
the level of understanding and awareness of
mentoring and befriending by their main funder as
either „good‟ or „excellent‟. There is evidence of
changes in demands being made by funders as
80% of befriending projects tell us that they have
seen an increase in demand to provide evidence of
outcomes, 43% see an increased demand for
partnership working, 36% see an increase in
demand for social impact reporting, 9% in payment
by results.
MBF Funding survey report 2011
22
Appendix 3: Survey data
Response
Frequency
49.3%
50.7%
Type of project
Befriending
Mentoring
Which part(s) of the UK does your project
cover?
England
Northern Ireland
Scotland
Wales
MBF Funding survey report 2011
71
73
Mentoring
Befriending
Combined
average
46.5%%
4.1%
9.6%
5.5%
45.8%%
4.2%
9.9%
8.5%
92.4%
4.2%
9.7%
6.9%
Response Frequency
Which is your primary client group?
Asylum seekers/refugees/migrants
Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic Communities
Carers
Disabled people (learning disabilities)
Disabled people (physical and/or sensory)
Employees (career or professional
development
Looked after children and young people
Offenders, ex-offenders, at risk of offending
Older people (socially isolated)
Parents and families
People with chronic /terminal illness or specific
medical condition
People not in employment, education or training
People who are homeless or in housing need
People with a mental health problem
People with substance misuse/addiction issues
Students
Other
How many service users
supported annually?
Between 1 and 10
Between 11 and 25
Between 25 and 50
More than 50
Response Count
2.3%
1.5%
1.5%
6.8%
5.3%
0.8%
10.6%
11.3%
19.7%
2.3%
5.5%
2.3%
2.3%
9.9%
3.0%
19.7%
7.3%
Mentoring
Befriending
Combined average
10.0%
25.7%
25.7%
38.6%
4.4%
16.2%
30.9%
48.5%
7.2%
21.0%
28.3%
43.5%
23
How long has your project
been running?
Less than a year
Between 1 and 2 years
Between 2 and 5 years
Longer than 5 years
Mentoring
Befriending
Combined average
8.3%
12.5%
38.9%
40.3%
13.2%
5.9%
19.1%
61.8%
10.7%
9.3%
29.3%
50.7%
How many volunteers are
there in your project?
Between 1 and 10
Between 11 and 25
Between 25 and 50
More than 50
Mentoring
Befriending
Combined average
15.7%
30.0%
34.3%
20.0%
14.7%
26.5%
27.9%
30.9%
15.2%
28.3%
31.2%
25.4%
Mentoring
Befriending
Combined average
Annual cost of running
project?
£0 to £25,000
£25,000 to £50,000
£50,000 to £100,000
£100,000 to £250,000
£250,000 to £500,000
£500,000+
47.5%
26.2%
6.6%
16.4%
1.6%
1.6%
31.5%
38.9%
22.2%
5.6%
0.0%
1.9%
40.0%
32.2%
13.9%
11.3%
0.9%
1.7%
Main source of funding?
Local authority
NHS Trust / PCT
Central Government
Charitable Trust / Lottery
European
Private sector
Donations
Fundraising (events) etc
Trading
Other:
Mentoring
26.2%
0.0%
9.8%
23.0%
0.0%
4.9%
3.3%
3.3%
0.0%
29.5%
Befriending
38.6%
5.3%
0.0%
29.8%
0.0%
3.5%
8.8%
7.0%
0.0%
7.0%
Combined average
32.2%
2.5%
5.1%
26.3%
0.0%
4.2%
5.9%
5.1%
0.0%
18.6%
How long is your main source
of funding for?
Less than 1 year
1 year
2 years
3 years
3+ years
Mentoring
Befriending
Combined average
20.7%
34.5%
8.6%
15.5%
20.7%
14.8%
42.6%
7.4%
24.1%
11.1%
17.9%
38.4%
8.0%
19.6%
16.1%
MBF Funding survey report 2011
24
How much funding do you
receive from your main funder?
£0 to £25,000
£25,000 to £50,000
£50,000 to £100,000
£100,000 to £250,000
£250,000 to £500,000
£500,000+
Additional source of funding
Local authority
NHS Trust / PCT
Central Government
Charitable Trust / Lottery
European
Private sector
Donations
Fundraising (events) etc
Trading
Other:
Mentoring
Befriending
51.7%
24.1%
8.6%
6.9%
6.9%
1.7%
38.5%
26.9%
17.3%
11.5%
3.8%
1.9%
Mentoring
27.8%
2.8%
0.0%
22.2%
2.8%
5.6%
38.9%
33.3%
11.1%
19.4%
Have the spending cuts had an impact
during current financial year (April 2010 –
March 2011)?
Yes
No
Don‟t know
Will the spending cuts have an impact
during next financial year (April 2011 –
March 2012)?
Yes
No
Don‟t know
If you receive statutory funding, has the
level changed over this financial year (April
2010 – March 2011)?
Yes our funding has been cut
No our funding has stayed the same
We haven‟t received this funding before
MBF Funding survey report 2011
Befriending
31.0%
16.7%
4.8%
42.9%
0.0%
7.1%
71.4%
47.6%
4.8%
0.0%
Combined average
45.5%
25.5%
12.7%
9.1%
5.5%
1.8%
Combined average
29.5%
10.3%
2.6%
33.3%
1.3%
6.4%
56.4%
41.0%
7.7%
9.0%
Mentoring
Befriending
Combined
average
46.8%
50.0%
3.2%
40.0%
54.5%
5.5%
43.6%
52.1%
4.3%
Mentoring
Befriending
Combined
average
69.4%
17.7%
12.9%
74.5%
12.7%
12.7%
71.8%
15.4%
12.8%
Mentoring
Befriending
Combined
average
31.5%
27.8%
40.7%
30.4%
50.0%
19.6%
31.0%
38.0%
31.0%
25
Has the demand for your service from users
changed over the last financial year?
Greater demand
Less demand
No change
Do you think the demand for your service
from users is likely to change over the next
financial year?
Greater demand
Less demand
No change
Have you seen any change in the pattern of
volunteer applications over last financial
year?
More volunteer applications
Fewer volunteer applications
No change
Do you think the pattern of volunteer
applications is likely to change over the
next financial year?
More applications
Fewer applications
No change
Do you think having a quality standard
strengthens your application or opportunity
to obtain funding?
Yes
No
Don‟t know
Which of the se quality standards does your
project have?
Approved Provider Standard (APS)
Investors in People
Investing in Volunteers
Matrix
PQASSO
Don‟t have any quality standards
MBF Funding survey report 2011
Mentoring
Befriending
Combined
average
55.0%
1.7%
43.3%
69.2%
1.9%
28.8%
61.6%
1.8%
36.6%
Mentoring
Befriending
Combined
average
73.3%
5.0%
21.7%
84.6%
1.9%
13.5%
78.6%
3.6%
17.9%
Mentoring
Befriending
Combined
average
45.0%
11.7%
43.3%
43.1%
7.8%
49.0%
44.1%
9.9%
45.9%
Mentoring
Befriending
Combined
average
48.3%
12.1%
39.7%
57.7%
5.8%
36.5%
52.7%
9.1%
38.2%
Mentoring
Befriending
Combined
average
76.3%
3.4%
20.3%
68.6%
5.9%
25.5%
72.7%
4.5%
22.7%
Mentoring
Befriending
64.7%
27.5%
11.8%
5.9%
7.8%
21.6%
60.4%
18.8%
8.3%
6.3%
8.3%
20.8%
Combined
average
62.6%
23.2%
10.1%
6.1%
8.1%
21.2%
26
How do you rate your main funder’s
understanding and awareness of mentoring
and befriending?
Very poor
Poor
Quite good
Good
Excellent
Mentoring
Befriending
Combined
average
0.0%
12.1%
36.2%
32.8%
19.0%
2.2%
17.4%
37.0%
32.6%
10.9%
1.0%
14.4%
36.5%
32.7%
15.4%
Has there been an increase in demand from
funders in the following areas?
Evidence of outcomes
Social impact reporting
More partnership working
Payment by results
Promotion of funder‟s profile
No change
Mentoring
Befriending
37.5%
14.3%
16.1%
1.8%
3.6%
58.9%
80.0%
35.65%
42.2%
8.9%
0.0%
17.8%
Combined
average
56.4%
23.8%
27.7%
5.0%
2.0%
40.6%
Have you any experience of dealing with
direct payments or personal budgets?
Yes
No
Mentoring
Befriending
16.1%
83.9%
23.4%
76.6%
Have you done any cost benefit analysis?
Mentoring
Befriending
Yes
No
Will be over the next year
Would like to but need further advice and
guidance
12.7%
52.7%
14.5%
29.1%
8.7%
54.3%
19.6%
32.6%
Have you engaged in any new ways of
working over the last financial year?
Merger
Collaboration/partnership working
Involved users in designing services
Sharing of back-office services
Mentoring
Befriending
0.0%
71.4%
33.3%
23.8%
19.2%
65.4%
38.5%
19.2%
Have you made any cuts to your project as a
result of the spending cuts during last
financial year?
Yes
No
Mentoring
Befriending
Combined
average
30.2%
69.8%
33.3%
66.7%
31.6%
68.4%
MBF Funding survey report 2011
Combined
average
19.4%
80.6%
Combined
average
10.9%
53.5%
16.8%
30.7%
Combined
average
10.6%
68.1%
36.2%
21.3%
27
If yes, in which areas?
Mentoring
Befriending
Staff cuts
Reduced number of clients supported
Reduced number of volunteers
Merged with another organisation
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
0.0%
92.3%
38.5%
38.5%
7.7%
If no, has your project expanded during the
last financial year?
Increased staff
Increased number of clients supported
Increased number of volunteers
No expansion
Other
Mentoring
Befriending
12.8%
33.3%
33.3%
56.4%
0.0%
9.4%
43.8%
34.4%
43.8%
3.1%
Are any cuts likely in the next financial year
do you think?
Staff cuts
Reduced number of clients supported
Reduced number of volunteers
Merger with another organisation
No cuts likely
Other
Mentoring
Befriending
40.9%
22.7%
18.2%
4.5%
47.7%
6.8%
39.5%
28.9%
26.3%
15.8%
44.7%
5.3%
In what ways is it likely that your project may
expand over the next financial year?
Increased staff
Increased number of clients supported
Increased number of volunteers
No expansion
Other
Mentoring
Befriending
11.1%
44.4%
44.4%
42.2%
2.2%
14.6%
46.3%
34.1%
48.8%
2.4%
Do you expect your project’s situation to
worsen or improve over the next financial
year?
Worsen
Improve
Stay the same
Mentoring
Befriending
Combined
average
47.1%
13.7%
39.2%
39.5%
14.0%
46.5%
43.6%
13.8%
42.6%
MBF Funding survey report 2011
Combined
average
87.0%
47.8%
39.1%
4.3%
Combined
average
11.3%
38.0%
33.8%
50.7%
1.4%
Combined
average
40.2%
25.6%
22.0%
9.8%
46.3%
6.1%
Combined
average
12.8%
45.3%
39.5%
45.3%
2.3%
28
About the Mentoring and Befriending Foundation
MBF is a national charity that encourages the growth and
development of mentoring and befriending across all
sectors. We provide expert guidance and support, promote
quality and good practice and work with others to
demonstrate the difference mentoring and befriending
makes to people‟s lives.
Our vision is of a society where mentoring and befriending
can enable all people to reach their full potential.
Mentoring and Befriending Foundation
Suite 1, 4th Floor, Building 3
Universal Square, Devonshire Street North
Manchester
M12 6JH
Tel: 03300 882877
Email: info@mandbf.org
Website: www.mandbf.org
MBF Funding survey report 2011
29