Evaluating Camden’s VCS
investment and support
programme
Janice Needham and Ann Sanders
July 2015
Evaluating Camden’s VCS investment and support programme
1. Introduction
1.1
The London Borough of Camden adopted a new approach to supporting and investing in Camden’s voluntary
and community sector in 2012. Its focus was on unlocking and recognising the value of the voluntary sector as
equal partners and creating a more sustainable and outcomes focused Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS)
fit to adapt to the difficult financial climate. A new investment programme was launched offering £6.5m of
investment and support available per annum between 2012 and 2015, provided through a range of grants and
contracts. The investment and support programme was subsequently extended to March 2016 with a reduced
budget of £5.8m per annum. Further details on the funding programmes are given in Section 2.
1.2 This report presents the evaluation findings of Camden’s VCS investment and support programme (2012-16).
The evaluation focuses on:

Impact on communities of project funding

Outcomes for VCS organisations

The added value of Camden’s ‘Funder Plus’ approach as a model for delivering funding

The strategic fit of the VCS investment programme with Camden Council’s strategic priorities.
1.3 Research questions are provided in Appendix 1 and a list of contributors is given in Appendix 2. The evaluation
further developed the research questions by reflecting on the CTS Team Theory of Change (see Appendix 3)
and developed an evaluation framework which is provided in Appendix 4. Findings are presented in the
following sections:
 Section 3: Impact on communities: Explores what impact project funding has had on the residents of
Camden.
 Section 4: Outcomes for organisations: Explores what impact core funding has had for organisations in
becoming more financially sustainable, leveraging further funding, having strong governance and
leadership for the sector.
 Section 5: Rent Relief: Provides a summary of the rent relief approach and the types of organisations in
receipt of funding
 Section 6: Funding approach: Looks at whether the ‘funder plus’ approach taken by the CTS team has
resulted in benefits for VCS organisations and value for money
 Section 7: VCS investment programme strategic fit: The relationship between the CTS investment and
support programme and Camden Council’s strategic priorities is discussed, including looking at ways in
which the investment programme has contributed to outcomes in the Camden Plan- a five year vision for
the borough covering the period 2012-17.
The evaluation was commissioned by the Communities and Third Sector Team (CTS) in March 2015. Janice
Needham and Ann Sanders were appointed as independent evaluators to lead the evaluation. Together they
bring 40 years of experience in evaluation and funding programmes across the grant making sector.
1.4
Methodology for this evaluation included analysis of project monitoring reports, an online survey to funded
VCS organisations and an online survey and interviews with selected Camden officials. Survey results are
included throughout the report as appropriate. As there was limited documentation on organisations receiving
rent relief only, data was extracted and analysed from the Charity Commission website for this subset. A full
description of methodology can be found in Appendix 5.
1.5
The findings of the evaluation are given in Section 8, with headlines as follows:
 15% of Camden residents benefited from project funding which was especially successful in mitigating
inequalities in the borough
 75% of VCS survey respondents felt they were better able to measure the impact of their work as a result
of Camden’s investment
 Investment has resulted in more financially sustainable organisations with overall income for
organisations funded under the Community Centres Fund increasing by 24% and self-generated income
having doubled
Janice Needham & Ann Sanders
1
8 July 2015
Evaluating Camden’s VCS investment and support programme
2 Overview of programmes and approach
Guiding principles
2.1 The Communities and Third Sector Team (CTS) approach to the investment and support programme is about
more than just financial support – it is about nurturing a new type of relationship with local VCS partners that
is based on unlocking and recognising the value of the local voluntary sector, and the potential that they can
achieve together as equal partners. To this end, the programme is designed to deliver against four “guiding
principles”:
 Fostering a more collaborative and equal working relationship between the council and the VCS
 Focusing support (financial or otherwise) on success and innovation
 A commitment to measuring outcomes and understanding what works and why
 Promoting sustainable income streams for Camden’s local VCS
2.2
The programme aims to work holistically to bring organisations together and to create opportunities for the
sector as a whole. Crucial to these guiding principles is the ability of organisations to be able to collaborate
with the council, each other and potentially cross-sector. The themes of collaboration, innovation, outcomes
and sustainability are further considered in the following sections of this report.
Programmes and investment
2.3 There was £6.5m of investment and support funding available per annum between 2012 and 2015 and the
programme was subsequently extended to March 2016 with a reduced budget of £5.8m per annum. 1. There
are five funding streams within the programme within the scope of this evaluation2 plus a rent relief policy for
VCS tenants in council buildings, which complements the investment programme. The funding streams
evaluated are:
 Equalities and Cohesion Fund (ECF) (66 grants to 52 organisations; total funding: £4.6m over 4.25 years)
 Innovation and Development Fund (IDF) (28 grants to 25 organisations; total funding: £1.6 m over 3.25
years)
 Volunteer, Giving and Exchange Fund (VGE) (11 grants to 11 organisations; total funding: £0.4m over 3.25
years)
 Community Centres Fund (CCF) (17 grants to 17 organisations; total funding: £ 4.9m over 4.25 years)
 Open Spaces for Young People Fund (OSYP) (5 grants to 5 organisations; total funding £0.6m over 2 years)
 Rent relief (supporting 55 organisations; total funding £4.9m3 over 5 years)
2.4 The total amount of funding committed is £17m. The chart below shows the distribution across the funding
streams and the aims of each strand are briefly given below.
1
Also includes staff costs for the CTS team
Other elements of the CTS programme outside of the scope of this evaluation are:

A contribution to London Councils grant scheme

Advice contracts (which form part of a separate evaluation led by OPM)

Contracts with Voluntary Action Camden and the Volunteer Centre Camden for organisational and capacity support
to VCS organisations in Camden and volunteering infrastructure.
 Volunteering small grants programme run by the Volunteer Centre Camden
3
A further £1.25m for rent relief is provided by other directorates including Children Schools and Families and HRA (Housing
Revenue Account)
2
Janice Needham & Ann Sanders
2
8 July 2015
Evaluating Camden’s VCS investment and support programme
Equalities and Cohesion Fund (ECF)
2.5 The fund aimed to reduce inequalities in Camden by increasing access to services, improving life chances and
promoting positive opportunities for vulnerable and excluded groups. Investments were aimed at building a
more resilient, inclusive and cohesive borough, strengthening a sense of belonging, reducing marginalization
and promoting constructive ways of dealing with conflict.
Volunteering Giving and Exchange (VGE)
2.6 The Volunteering Giving and Exchange Fund aimed to increase volunteering within the borough and improve
the range and quality of volunteering opportunities for residents and Camden organisations across all sectors.
Innovation and Development Fund (IDF)
2.7 This fund aimed to find and invest in innovative ideas that tackle ingrained social problems in Camden and to
nurture innovation within Camden.
Community Centres Fund (CCF)
2.8 Community Centres provide a range of services and activities to meet community need. The Community
Centres Fund was established to support 17 community facilities across Camden to become more sustainable
in a difficult financial climate to be able to continue to meet the needs of their local community.
Open Spaces for Young People (OSYP)
2.9 This programme aims to ensure the financial resilience and future sustainability of “landmark” open spaces for
young people in Camden.
Janice Needham & Ann Sanders
3
8 July 2015
Evaluating Camden’s VCS investment and support programme
3. Impact of the investment on communities
Introduction
3.1
This section presents information on the outcomes of the project grants programmes aimed at improving lives
of individual residents and communities in Camden: the Equalities and Cohesion Fund (ECF), the Volunteering,
Giving and Exchange Fund (VGE) and the Innovation and Development Fund (IDF). The funds aimed to reduce
inequalities, increase innovation and increase volunteering opportunities and quality of volunteering (see 2.5 –
2.7 above for the aims of each fund in more detail). Information is drawn from project monitoring reports and
presented thematically.
3.2
During the application process each funded organisation developed their own project outcomes within the
broad aims of the programmes. Outcomes were led by the needs of communities as assessed by the VCS
sector. The outcomes were characterised by a focus on prevention and early intervention working to reach
communities often difficult to reach through mainstream services. Funding did not duplicate services being
run by the London Borough of Camden in discharging its statutory responsibilities. However, during the
application stage officers in the CTS team facilitated contact for organisations with the relevant departments
in Camden to support connections to be made.
3.3
Evidence of the impact on residents and the community have been categorised into four themes for the
purposes of this report:
 improved health and wellbeing
 improved outcomes related to employment, education and training
 improved community cohesion and engagement with criminal justice system; reduced risk of crime
 improved access to advice and support services
In total 34,424 individuals directly benefited from £6.5million expenditure on 104 project grants 2012-15.
This accounts for 15% of Camden residents. The type of benefit varies greatly, for example some projects
provide intense 1:1 support to a small number of residents and others work with a much larger group,
perhaps raising awareness of issues.
3.4
Some projects have outcomes related to more than one theme and have been included in each theme as
appropriate. Each theme is considered below.
3.5
Before looking at outcomes by theme we present some observations on programme aims. We also reflect on
the quality of reporting from organisations.
Observations on programme aims
3.6
The funds aimed to reduce inequalities, increase innovation and increase volunteering and the quality of
volunteering. There is evidence that these were achieved as follows:
Addressing inequalities:
3.7
There was a strong focus on inequalities and targeting those who may have difficulty accessing statutory
services. For example, the majority of health projects targeted demographic groups where there are
inequalities or difficulties in accessing services. In addition, 10 of the 40 employment projects targeted BME
populations, including three focused on the Somali community and one the Bangladeshi community. Three
employment projects reached young people with disabilities, including learning disabled, and four projects
specifically worked with women as a distinct equalities group. In the community cohesion theme, four projects
focus on the Somali community and four on the LGBT community. Projects led by such “communities of
interest” (e.g. Somali, LGBT communities) appear to be particularly effective in contributing to community
cohesion outcomes, which was one of the aims of the fund.
Janice Needham & Ann Sanders
4
8 July 2015
Evaluating Camden’s VCS investment and support programme
Fostering Innovation:
3.8 A number of innovation projects stand out from the information provided, including:
 Tavistock Centre for Couples Relationships - Living Together with Dementia project - a psychosocial
intervention to support the relationships of couples living with dementia. A focus on couples has not
been a part of dementia care previously.
 The Good Gym, where runners are paired with an isolated older person in Camden. They run to visit them
each week as part of their fitness workout and contribute to reduced isolation
 Bloomsbury Babies (Calthorpe Project) provided a small scale workspace and crèche project for under 5's
and 48% of participants responding to the feedback surveys reported an increase in income as a result of
using the Parents Workspace.
 Camden LGBT Forum: a roving LGBT community space that worked in partnership with organisations in
Camden, to bring existing assets and services to a wider LGBT community and geography and show how
an innovative use of space can benefit other Camden communities and solve concerns over potential
funding and physical space.
3.9
However many other “innovation” projects were not necessarily developing innovative approaches or did not
provide sufficient information to assess effectiveness. There was a lack of clarity as to how innovation was
defined – was this innovation for the organisation, for the sector or for the beneficiary? It was difficult to
assess impact as not all provided information on numbers of beneficiaries. There was differing interpretation
of the levels of innovation as provided by self-assessment and it may be that fewer measures with criteria for
each would be helpful. The self-assessment tool was helpful in assisting organisations to track innovation
within their organisation but was unable to provide comparative data to assess the impact on innovation in
Camden as a whole.
Increasing opportunities for quality volunteering:
3.10 As well as the projects supported under the VGE4 programme there were a number of other projects (funded
through the ECF and IDF programmes) which included a volunteering component. Such projects were able to
combine providing opportunities for volunteering which may improve employability with providing individual
support to others. Such projects demonstrated high levels of engagement with beneficiaries contributing to
reducing isolation for example.
3.11 Volunteering plays a key role in developing strong communities. The VGE projects aimed to support volunteers
to develop skills, increased wellbeing and improved employment prospects whilst providing support for
Camden residents. The VGE projects achieved all these outcomes and many of the ECF and IDF projects also
included volunteering opportunities.
3.12 The availability of a specific fund for volunteering may be useful to support staff to recruit, train and manage
front line volunteers, resulting in greater consistency and quality in services delivered by volunteers. However
this evaluation did not specifically examine these aspects of the quality of volunteering opportunities. Given
that many projects involving volunteers were funded through the ECF and IDF programmes it does not appear
to be necessary to have a ring fenced volunteering fund to ensure that volunteer opportunities are provided.
In addition a separate contract is provided to the Volunteer Centre Camden to support and co-ordinate
volunteering across Camden, not just to funded organisations. This contract was not in the scope of this
evaluation.
Impact on health and wellbeing
3.13 Almost half of all project grants (50 projects or 48% of project grants) had outcomes related to health and
wellbeing. The amount awarded was £2,988,129 and 10,100 Camden residents benefitted - 4% of the total
4
Other work on volunteering supported by Camden Council including the contract to the Volunteer Centre Camden and the
Volunteering and Small Grants scheme did not fall within the scope of this evaluation
Janice Needham & Ann Sanders
5
8 July 2015
Evaluating Camden’s VCS investment and support programme
number of residents.
3.14 Projects have achieved the following outcomes:
 Improved health and wellbeing of older people, including reduced isolation and increased independence
(NB two projects specifically focused on dementia)
 Improved health and wellbeing of women, including increased empowerment and reduced isolation
 Improved health and wellbeing of disabled people, including increased confidence and independence and
increased access to support services
 Improved health and wellbeing of those with mental health issues, including greater empowerment and
increased access to support
 Improved health and wellbeing of young people, including being better informed and equipped to make
positive choices on health including sexual health
 Improved wellbeing of children and families, including increased access to services and increased selfesteem of children
 Improved wellbeing, reduced isolation and increased access to services for a range of other
disadvantaged groups, including homeless people, Somali families and the Bangladeshi community
3.15 The chart below summarises the distribution of these outcomes
Number of projects with health and wellbeing
outcomes
others
18%
older people
32%
children and
families
6%
young people
8%
mental health
issues
10%
women
16%
disabled people
10%
3.16 Funding enabled a range of communities and groups to manage their own health needs and seek support
where needed. There was significant reach across many vulnerable groups with projects ranging from one to
one volunteering support for isolated older people through to projects supporting Bangladeshi women with
English language skills and confidence to manage a range of everyday situations including going to the GP.
The case studies below provide specific examples of the range of health and wellbeing outcomes for the
residents of Camden.
Janice Needham & Ann Sanders
6
8 July 2015
Evaluating Camden’s VCS investment and support programme
Improved health and wellbeing of older people, including reduced isolation and increased independence
Case study: North London Cares (ECF) awarded £70,000 over 2 years, beneficiaries 300 older people, 200
volunteers reached in the first year
Connecting People, Building Communities delivers intergenerational social networks activities through the
Love Your Neighbour project, which creates links between older people and young professionals – using the
assets of younger people to build resilience amongst older people. In October 2014 an impact evaluation
demonstrated that: 81% of older neighbours who participate regularly are better connected to other people;
73% say their isolation has reduced; 77% say their relations with young people have improved (84% for those
whose relations were previously negative); 73% say they are more active; 76% say they have access to a
greater range of experiences; 86% are more able to appreciate the world; 52% say they are more selfconfident and secure in their area; 51% say they feel more in touch with their community.
Improved health and wellbeing of women, including increased empowerment and reduced isolation
Case Study: Henna Asian Women’s Group (ECF) awarded £60,000 over 2 years, 15 beneficiaries reached in
the first year– all BME women
The project provides support for BME women Kilburn with language and other barriers to employment. The
project works in partnership with the Mary Ward Centre to deliver pre entry level ESOL training and practical
skills. Volunteers were trained to provide one to one support to these women who will then go on to support
new beneficiaries to take part. All 15 women surveyed had low confidence at the start of the project and were
isolated. As a result of the project 13 out of 15 (87%) women can explain themselves to a GP and make
appointments without any help; 100% of participants feel more confident and access different services; and
100% of them are more independent and feel less isolated.
Impact on employment, education and training
3.17 Just over a third of grants (41 projects or 39% of project grants) had outcomes related to employment,
education and training. The amount awarded was £2,593,660 and 5,541 Camden residents benefitted - 2% of
the total number of residents. Projects have achieved the following outcomes:
 Increased number of Camden residents and students gaining local employment, employed in new
business developments or improving employability
 Increased number of young people in education, employment or training (especially socially excluded
groups such as unemployed young people under the age of 25
 Increased levels of training and skill among vulnerable and social groups where long-term problems with
unemployment exist
 Increased educational attainment among schools age children
3.18 The chart below summarises the distribution of outcomes.
Janice Needham & Ann Sanders
7
8 July 2015
Evaluating Camden’s VCS investment and support programme
Projects with employment, education and training outcomes
5 projects
7 projects
17 projects
12 projects
Increased local employment/improving employability
Increased young people in education, employment or training
Increased levels of training and skill among vulnerable and social groups
Increased educational attainment school age children
3.19 Funding enabled a range of communities and groups to improve access to employment, education and
training. There was significant reach across many vulnerable groups with projects ranging from supporting
people with learning disabilities to learn skills and gain qualifications, increasing participation in education by
adults from BME groups such as refugees/asylum seekers who are not provided for by existing learning and
skills funding streams and recruiting mothers looking for employment and offering them volunteering
opportunities. The case studies below provide specific examples of the range of employment, education and
training outcomes for the residents of Camden.
Increased young people in Education, Employment and Training
Case study: New Horizon Youth Centre (ECF) awarded £67,000 to work intensively with high risk, vulnerable
and marginalised young people between the ages of 16 – 21 who have an offending history, gang affiliation or
are leaving care as well as young women at risk of sexual violence. To date, 16 of the 27 young people
engaged have moved from NEET to EET with the support of the project. Two with offending histories have
started attending university and 11 have started and maintained paid employment or apprenticeships.
Increased employment, new business development or improved employability
Case Study: South Hampstead and Kilburn Community Partnership (ECF) awarded £120,000 to provide
employment advice, employability training and basic skills (ESOL, literacy, and numeracy) and low level ICT
training for residents of the Alexandra and Ainsworth estates in Kilburn and the nearby neighbourhoods. As a
result, workless residents over 25 have an increased chance of finding sustainable employment. Monitoring
identified more than 95% success with 16 people moved into employment from the service. Jobs secured
included: delivery driver, gardener, community researchers, case worker, cleaner etc.
Janice Needham & Ann Sanders
8
8 July 2015
Evaluating Camden’s VCS investment and support programme
Increased training and skill among groups with long term unemployment
Case Study: West Hampstead Women’s Centre (ECF) awarded £72,400 for a project to support marginalised
women, including to develop employment-related skills and ability to secure jobs and training. To date all the
women who have gained an NVQ qualification at WHWC have found paid work and some have succeeded in
negotiated higher hourly rates with their employers. For example 16 Somali women with gained employment
in the Health and Social Care industry, two Somali women are working in Camden schools as support workers
for teachers, three are working as cleaners, five are paid disabled children's escort and one is a bus driver for
disabled children. 19 women improved their English language and studied for the citizenship test by attending
an ESOL class.
Impact on community cohesion, engagement with criminal justice system and crime/risk
of crime
3.20 Just over a quarter of projects (28 projects or 27% of project grants) had outcomes related to community
cohesion and crime. The amount awarded was £1,654,865 and 14,529 Camden residents benefitted - 6% of
the total number of residents.
3.21 The VCS survey provided additional evidence of building community cohesion. Almost all organisations
responding agreed that “Camden’s investment has enabled my organisation to build broader community
resilience/cohesion” (38% strongly agree, 53% agree).
3.22 Projects have achieved the following outcomes:
 Increased community participation and cohesion - within local communities (e.g. West Euston
Timebank); within demographic groups (e.g. young people in projects run by the Roundhouse Trust);
between older and younger people (e.g. St Luke’s Oseney Crescent); between communities (e.g. LGBT
Forum, Somali Youth Development Resource Centre)
 Reduced involvement/risk of involvement in crime/anti-social behaviour
 Increased confidence in and appropriate engagement with criminal justice system
3.23 The chart below summarises the outcomes
Projects with community cohesion and crime
reduction outcomes
4 projects
5 projects
17 projects
Increased community participation and cohesion
Reduced involvement in crime
Increased confidence in/engagement with criminal justice system
3.24 There was significant reach across many vulnerable groups with projects ranging from improving life chances
and reducing isolation of vulnerable women involved in offending or at risk of offending to providing peer-toJanice Needham & Ann Sanders
9
8 July 2015
Evaluating Camden’s VCS investment and support programme
peer led support and advice to young Somali people at risk of involvement in gang-related crime; building
community resilience through developing awareness of LGBT hate crime and increasing hate crime reporting.
The case studies below provide specific examples of the range of community cohesion and crime reduction
outcomes for the residents of Camden.
Increased confidence in and appropriate engagement with criminal justice system
Case study: British Somali Community (ECF) awarded £74,000
A Parent Support Project which aims to raise awareness amongst parents and young people about the role of
statutory services such as schools, the police and children’s services. By providing information primarily
through workshops, the project is breaking down barriers by discussing those services’ legal obligations as well
as the rights of parents. 76 Somali parents benefited from these sessions all of whom stated that project
events had contributed to a reduction in fear/ suspicion of statutory providers and had a positive impact in
promoting positive relationships with the police and in promoting collaboration. Three parents found the
confidence to contact their ward panels to express their concern about the number of drug dealers in their
area and discuss ways to safeguard their children. Speakers from statutory services who spoke at these
events, in turn all found that they had a better understanding of the issues faced by Somali families and how
misinformation was contributing to parental powerlessness and consequently to youth disorder and family
breakdown.
Reduced involvement/risk of involvement in crime/anti-social behaviour
Case study: Clean Break Theatre Company (ECF) awarded £114,060, 105 beneficiaries.
Vulnerable women in Camden involved in offending or at risk of offending due to substance misuse and
mental health were supported to develop confidence and skills through drama based workshops and
progression support. A survey of 38 Camden-based women in 2014 who graduated from Clean Break courses
the previous year found 84% were in education, employment or volunteering. There was take-up of 30 work
placements including as front of house ushers at The Roundhouse, The Royal Court Theatre and Talawa
Theatre.
Increased confidence in and appropriate engagement with criminal justice system
Case Study: Camden LGBT Forum (ECF) awarded £80,000, 3200 beneficiaries
The project aimed to expand the number of communities, organisations and groups reporting on LGBT hate
crime. As a result there has been a 5 fold increase in reports from groups outside of the LGBT Forum, including
a 3 fold increase in reports from people who define with non-traditional genders. This has particularly been
positive amongst BME communities and has been included in the Government Equalities Office best practice
guides.
Impact on access to advice and support services
3.25 12 projects (12% of project grants) had outcomes related to improved advice and support to access services.
The amount awarded for such projects was £989,183 and 6,197 Camden residents benefited -3% of the total
number of residents.
3.26 Projects have achieved the following types of outcomes:
 Increased levels of economic wellbeing through increase in benefits and better access to affordable and
secure housing (e.g. London Irish Centre). This included at least an additional £708,400 generated in
benefits and grants.
 Increased confidence in managing benefits and accessing support (e.g. Mary Ward Legal Centre).
 Increased financial awareness and confidence in personal finance management (e.g. Camden Community
Law Centre).
 Reduced digital exclusion (Camden CAB).
Janice Needham & Ann Sanders
10
8 July 2015
Evaluating Camden’s VCS investment and support programme
3.27 As these are often inter-related an analysis by type of outcome is not appropriate. The case study below
provides a specific example of the improved access to support and advice services for the residents of
Camden.
Case Study: Mary Ward Legal Centre (ECF) awarded £53,500, 132 beneficiaries.
Communities in the Know - The project trained local residents as volunteer trainers who support local
residents to deal with the impact of welfare reforms. Participants who completed the evaluation sheets
reported an increase in confidence of where to go to get further advice from 44% to 70%. Individuals are
better equipped and feel empowered to advocate on their own behalves regarding their welfare entitlements
.Participants who completed the evaluation sheets reported an increase in confidence of what they need to do
when claiming benefits from 35% to 63%. Knowledge of who deals with the benefits and how to contact them
increased from 27% to 68%. Knowledge of what to do if there is a problem with their benefit increased from
35% to 63%.
Observations on Programme Reporting
3.28 The survey of funded VCS organisations provided additional evidence of benefits, with almost all organisations
agreeing with the statement: “Camden’s investment in my organisation has resulted in improvements for the
residents of Camden” (69% strongly agree, 27% agree).
3.29 Projects developed and agreed their own outcomes and were provided with input from the CTS team in
developing an outcomes framework. As a result planned outcomes were generally clearly articulated.
Organisations were then asked to report against outcomes and the vast majority felt that outcomes had been
achieved. However, evidence provided did not always completely substantiate this, including information on
activity rather than outcomes being provided. It was therefore sometimes difficult to independently verify the
achievement of outcomes.
Key findings








Programmes are highly effective in addressing inequality and have also supported innovation and
strengthening of organisations.
34,424 individuals benefited from £6.5million expenditure on 104 project grants 2012-15 (IDF; ECF; VGE),
accounting for 15% of Camden residents.
Projects led by “communities of interest” (e.g. Somali, LGBT communities) appear to be particularly
effective in contributing to community cohesion outcomes.
Volunteering plays a key role, combining skills development and improving employment prospects with
improving support for Camden residents. However given that volunteer opportunities are provided by
projects across all project funding programmes it may not be necessary to have a separate volunteering
fund.
There is a continuing case to support innovation but this may benefit from clearer definition and criteria
and a sharper focus – possibly linking into a wider agenda.
Fewer self-assessment measures on innovation with clear criteria as well as information on numbers of
beneficiaries would support more effect assessment of innovation.
Project funding reports provide rich information and there is potential to summarise and aggregate this
as demonstrated here.
Greater support is needed for monitoring of outcomes, as the information reported is variable in quality
for example presenting activity data rather than outcome evidence.
Janice Needham & Ann Sanders
11
8 July 2015
Evaluating Camden’s VCS investment and support programme
4. Outcomes for VCS organisations
Introduction
4.1
Organisational capacity building was a feature of the VCS investment programme as a whole. However, two
programmes are aimed specifically at organisational strengthening: the Community Centres Fund and the
Open Spaces for Young People’s Fund. The rent relief programme also provides support to organisations (see
Section 5). A range of training available to all funded organisations also contributes to organisational
strengthening and this is explored more in Section 6.
Community Centres Fund
4.2
Camden Council funds Community Centres in order to provide a strong local community facility to meet the
needs of residents. Information is inconsistent across the cohort of Centres, reflecting levels of engagement,
however there is evidence to show that some Centres have made progress over a period of several years
against the programme outcomes:
 be independent, robust and sustainable (e.g. by developing strategy, strengthening governance, and
diversifying services and income sources)
 understand and articulate the needs of the community (e.g. by conducting needs analysis, representation
via key strategic forums)
 be adaptable to the changing strategic environment (e.g. by developing partnerships and exploring joint
funding opportunities)
4.3
Even in a challenging financial climate, overall income has grown by 24% from £6.5m to £8m. In addition there
is less reliance on income from Camden Council, with the proportion of non-Camden Council income
increasing from 37% to over 50%. In particular self-generated income has almost doubled from £1.1 million to
just over £2 million and now accounts for a quarter of all income, as shown in the chart below. Many centres
also generated income from donations for the first time.
Income by type
£2,500,000
£2,000,000
£1,500,000
£1,000,000
£500,000
£0
2011/12
4.4
2012/13
2013/14
Looking at individual centres:
 10 Community Centres increased income in the period, with incomes reducing for seven, although for
four of these the reduction is small.
Janice Needham & Ann Sanders
12
8 July 2015
Evaluating Camden’s VCS investment and support programme


At least two centres income almost doubled over the funding period with huge increases in selfgenerated income for both centres.
Some centres also demonstrated putting in place relevant policies and procedures and an increase in the
services and activities being delivered at the centre.
4.5
Community Centres also contribute to outcomes for individuals and communities. For example, based on a
snapshot captured in one week in November 2014, there were 7,430 users of the centres, of whom 5,254 (i.e.
75%) were Camden residents.
4.6
Further info on funded organisations is available on the Camden Council website:
http://www.camden.gov.uk/ccm/content/community-and-living/voluntary-organisations-andfunding/voluntary-and-community-sector-review-2010/voluntary-and-community-sector-vcs-investment-andsupport-programme-2012-2015.en?page=2#section-2.
Community Centre Forum
4.7
As part of the Community Centres Fund, the council has facilitated a forum for those centres receiving awards
to broker new strategic conversations which aims to:
 enrich the partnership between the 17 funded Community Centres and the London Borough of Camden
 provide oversight of learning and development of interest to Community Centres
 share learning from Community Centres Fund implementation
 share information and insights of strategic importance to Community Centres and issues arising.
Community Centre Consortium
4.8
The IDF Programme has funded £43,600 to the C4 Camden Community Centres Consortium, a consortium of
14 Community Centres to develop relationships with businesses in Camden. One of the outcomes from this
grant is to strengthen the capacity of the consortium organisations. Staff consider this a success, enabling
some centres to win commissions they would not otherwise have done.
Open Spaces for Young People Fund
4.9
The aim of this fund, established in 2014, is to ensure the financial resilience and future sustainability of
“landmark” open spaces for young people in Camden. Organisations have been supported to strengthen:
 governance (e.g. by developing business plans, mentoring for staff and board members, developing
policies and procedures)
 diversify income (by fundraising training, exploring and securing new sources of funding such as trading
income, expanding services)
 services and collaboration (by developing marketing strategies, conducting needs assessments)
4.10 As the fund is relatively recent, there is limited information available so far with which to measure
effectiveness. Reporting from these organisations should be structured in order to ensure direction of travel
against programme outcomes can be demonstrated. There was no information on income sources for OSYP
projects and it may be useful to collect this in the future to assess sustainability.
4.11 A proportion of the fund has been set aside to develop and facilitate a joint action learning programme (for
example a series of sessions by the School of Social Entrepreneurs on trading for sustainability, rated
“extremely good” by 78% of participants). Organisations appear to have prioritised strengthening their
governance and critically reviewing their position and future offer, where there is evidence of progress over
twelve months.
Janice Needham & Ann Sanders
13
8 July 2015
Evaluating Camden’s VCS investment and support programme
Key findings









The programme has provided financial and other support to strategic community based resources in
the form of the CCF and OSYP programmes. Investment in strengthening Community Centres has
contributed to an overall increase in income of 24% (2011/2 to 2013/14).
The reliance on Camden Council funding has decreased, with over 50% of income now from other
sources. Self-generated income has almost doubled and now accounts for 25% of income.
Ten of the 17 Community Centres have had an increase in income, with significant increases for six
centres. At least two have doubled the amount self-generated income.
There is evidence to show that some Centres have made progress against the programme outcomes:
o be independent, robust and sustainable (e.g. by developing strategy, strengthening
governance, and diversifying services and income sources)
o understand and articulate the needs of the community (e.g. by conducting needs analysis,
representation via key strategic forums)
o be adaptable to the changing strategic environment (e.g. by developing partnerships and
exploring joint funding opportunities)
It was challenging to assess distance travelled due to the lack of consistency in the quality and structure
of information on organisations funded under the Community Centres Fund. Adopting a standard and
accredited tool such as PQASSO may help in supporting organisations and tracking changes in the
future.
The new outcomes framework is now in place for the funding period 2015-16 against which Centres are
to provide evidence in December 2015 focuses on individuals and communities, which will be of
interest but there is still a need to measure distance travelled for organisations as a result of the
investment.
The programme’s focus on outcomes and support for training in this area appears to have delivered
benefits – 75% agree that the council’s investment has contributed to their ability to demonstrate
impact.
Organisations funded through OSYP have been supported to strengthen their:
- governance (e.g. by developing business plans, mentoring for staff and board members,
developing policies and procedures)
- diversification of income (by fundraising training, exploring and securing new sources, expanding
services)
- services and collaboration (by developing marketing strategies, conducting needs assessments)
Information on income sources for OSYP organisations would enable an analysis of this element of
sustainability.
Janice Needham & Ann Sanders
14
8 July 2015
Evaluating Camden’s VCS investment and support programme
5. Rent relief
5.1
55 organisations received rent relief totalling £1,104,9435 in 2014/15. The funding arrangements are not
mutually exclusive i.e. organisations can receive core funding, rent relief and project funding. In 2014/15:
 18 organisations receive both rent relief plus other “core” funding in the form of CCF or OSYP grants.
 23 organisations received rent relief only
 4 organisations receive rent relief plus (time limited) project funding.
5.2
Rent relief was evaluated against the four Camden Investment tests:
 Investment test one: tackle inequality
 Investment test two: focus on outcomes
 Investment test three: invest in early intervention where possible
 Investment test four: make every pound count
5.3
There is some evidence that organisations receiving rent relief are tackling inequality (Investment Test 1), for
example by providing services and activities for those in need. Using Charity Commission records, of the 52
organisations with information available:
 88% provide support to children and young people
 74% provide support to people with disabilities
 68% provide support to older people
 50% provide support to people of a particular ethnic or racial origin
 Often organisations were providing services and activities to more than one service
5.4
Using Charity Commission records, of the 52 organisations with information available:
 82% provide education and training
 58% provide services related to economic/community development/employment
5.5
Organisations receiving rent relief were asked to self-assess against the Camden investment tests. Two thirds
of organisations responded. Over three quarters of those responding indicated that the funding had enabled
their organisation to meet the investment tests.
 “Core grant and rent relief enables leverage of 65% more income to provide a wide range of services
including early intervention services for children and older, vulnerable people.” (Organisation received rent
relief plus other grant funding)
 “Having the use of this building rent-free is a blessing to us. We have been able to use this considerable
asset to raise our profile, to create a safe women-only resource for those women who are recovering from
domestic abuse, rape and other severe trauma. We have also used the rent rebate as match funding and
were able to attract Lottery funding for a 5 year project for women carers and survivors of abuse.”
(Organisation received rent relief only)
5.6
It would be useful to include some basic criteria for organisations receiving rent relief, including being a
registered charity (or other regulated form such as Industrial and Provident Society), submitting accounts on
time to the Charity Commission and showing the income received through rent relief in annual accounts.
5
Further rent relief contributions are made by other directorates - HRA contributes £175k and CSF £110k.
Janice Needham & Ann Sanders
15
8 July 2015
Evaluating Camden’s VCS investment and support programme
Key findings



Organisations receiving rent relief appear to be providing activities and services for those in
need, with 88% of organisations supporting children and young people; 74% supporting
disabled people; 68% supporting older people and 50% supporting people of particular
ethnic/racial origin.
Over three quarters of those receiving rent relief responding stated that Camden funding
helped their organisation meet the Camden investment tests.
Basic criteria could be developed for organisations receiving rent relief, including appropriate
registration with a regulatory body, timely submission of accounts and amounts received as
rent relief shown in accounts.
Janice Needham & Ann Sanders
16
8 July 2015
Evaluating Camden’s VCS investment and support programme
6. Funding approach
Introduction
6.1
This section considers the context of “funder plus”, describes the approach adopted in Camden and presents
views of stakeholders on the approach.
Funder Plus
6.2
Funder plus is a term used internally by Camden staff to describe its approach. This term is now used by many
in the funding sector and is defined by IVAR in a paper on the topic 6 as:
All those activities in which funders engage, or have the possibility of engaging in, to support and work
alongside those they fund – whether those activities are about developing the skills or competencies of
grantees; helping to influence policy and/or practice alongside grantees or on their behalf or independently; or
something else.
Camden’s approach
6.3
Different funders adopt varying elements of the funder plus approach to a greater or lesser extent. Camden’s
approach places a strong emphasis on capacity building and collaboration and is encapsulated by its four
guiding principles (as outlined in Section 2), clearly communicated publicly on the website7. Evidence on the
application of the guiding principles is considered further below.
6.4
In practice the funder plus approach is delivered in a number of ways:
 The provision of staff resources, e.g. Outcomes and Development Officers providing tailored support to
organisations.
 The provision of training and development, e.g. a significant range of opportunities for all funded
organisations (such as fundraising training) and some programme-specific training, e.g. trading for
sustainability for OSYP organisations.
 Supporting collaboration and partnerships between VCS organisations and between the sector and the
council, e.g. convening and supporting the Community Centres Forum.
6.5
A review of a small sample of London Boroughs shows that Camden provides a much higher level of
information about its approach, the different funding streams, their purpose and the grants awarded (levels of
funding were not compared).
6.6
Camden’s emphasis on capacity building and collaboration (particularly for CCF and OSYP) reflects many
aspects of good practice in relation to funder plus working with small and medium charities, as highlighted by
a recent funder round table8.
6.7
Camden staff interviewed feel that their ability to convene and provide strategic support, combined with a
bespoke approach that can fit individual organisations’ needs, are key strengths of the approach. Benefits
identified by staff can be summarised as:
 a stronger sector overall, with more resilient organisations providing more effective services
 better relationships and mutual understanding between the council and the sector.
6
Beyond money: A study of funding plus in the UK. Institute for Voluntary Action Research 2011
http://www.camden.gov.uk/ccm/content/community-and-living/voluntary-organisations-and-funding/voluntary-andcommunity-sector-review-2010/voluntary-and-community-sector-vcs-investment-and-support-programme-20122015/?page=2#section-2
8
Building resilience and improving sustainability of small and medium sized charities. NCVO, Big Lottery Fund and Lloyds Bank
Foundation. June 2014 http://londonfunders.org.uk/building-resilience-and-improving-sustainability-small-and-medium-sizedcharities
7
Janice Needham & Ann Sanders
17
8 July 2015
Evaluating Camden’s VCS investment and support programme
Application of guiding principles
6.8
As outlined in Section 2, guiding principles were established for the programmes. There is evidence that these
principles have been reflected across programmes as shown in the chart below and each principle is discussed
briefly in the following paragraphs.
VCS agreement
Promoting sustainable income streams for
Camden’s local VCS
A commitment to measuring outcomes and
understanding what works and why
Focusing support (financial or otherwise) on
success and innovation
Fostering a more collaborative and equal
working relationship between the council
and the VCS
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Fostering a more collaborative and equal working relationship between the council and the VCS
6.9 71% of VCS survey respondents agree that Camden’s investment has fostered a more collaborative and equal
working relationship between the council and the VCS. Comments included:
 “I know I can always get through to someone from all divisions, including political officers. We are
consulted with on all major matters and our work with Community Safety and the Third Sector team has
provided great benefits to our partnership work, outcomes and resources.”
 “The process of each funding round fostered a partnership approach with the council. There were group
sessions with the council to discuss the funding streams, which enabled a productive dialogue. I felt that
this, together with the grant monitoring improved relationships.”
 “During two feasibility studies carried out in Camden, many links were made with the council through the
Third Sector team including with the Housing, Sustainability, Education and Waste/Recycling depts. This
has been beneficial for follow-on activities, as it has become easier to access information and align our
activities more closely with council objectives.”
 “It is very noticeable that LB Camden is actively trying to develop a more collaborative and equal working
relationship between the council and the VCS. This is (inevitably) being succeeded with better in some
parts of the council than others.”
 “In the early months of the project we were given significant help to orient ourselves to the agencies
within Camden that we needed to make links with, and also invited to relevant meetings, providing a
context for us to meet with other stakeholders and people working in the field of old age and dementia
care. We were not only invited to relevant meetings, we were also copied in to emails and kept informed
of things that were happening in the Borough in this field and given introductions to people we needed to
meet.”
6.10 However not all agree:
 “Micro management and labyrinthine application processes have made the situation worse.”
6.11 Staff surveyed and interviewed broadly agreed that within the sector the council’s profile has improved and
there is a better understanding of what it does, although effective cross-council working with the sector is still
a challenge.
Janice Needham & Ann Sanders
18
8 July 2015
Evaluating Camden’s VCS investment and support programme
Focusing support on success and innovation
6.12 80% of VCS survey respondents agreed that Camden’s investment had focused support on success and
innovation.
6.13 Some project funding was specifically dedicated to innovation. However as discussed in Section 3, success and
innovation have not been clearly defined for the programme.
A commitment to measuring outcomes and understanding what works and why
6.14 74% of VCS survey respondents felt that there had been a commitment to measuring outcomes and
understanding what works and why. In addition 75% of VCS survey respondents agreed that Camden’s
investment has contributed to their ability to demonstrate impact:
 “We have been required to think differently about the impact of specific projects through the application
and reporting requirements of the investment programme. This has helped to build the capacity of service
and project managers in this area.”
 “Camden's investment has enabled us to work with many more organisations and build up more
partnerships than previously. It is our collaboration with these groups and their contribution to our
reporting mechanisms that has helped us to demonstrate impact in a wider context across the Borough.”
 “Access to courses, for example social value, has enabled the organisation to consider different ways in
which to demonstrate impact.”
6.15 Staff feedback from interviews and the survey was more mixed, citing challenges such as the difficulty of
aggregating information across diverse projects and communicating effectively about impact within the
council.
6.16 As stated in Section 3, the evaluators found that outcomes were clearly articulated but evidence to monitor
against these was not always presented.
Stronger and more sustainable organisations
6.17 78% of VCS survey respondents agree that Camden’s investment has enabled them to become stronger and
more sustainable; 86% agree that Camden’s investment has enabled them to develop or broaden their service
offer. Evidence includes:
 “The transition into having a much wider base of financial support and revenue is a slow process that
needs proper time and planning. We could not have made the progress we have without Camden's
support.”
 “We were able to develop the following activities which we have never offered before such as religious
celebrations, food festival, children’s dance, women only sport activities.”
 “This grant has given us greater resources to recruit, train and support our users and members as service
volunteers that has led to an expansion in the range of services offered even though our annual cash
budget has significantly reduced.”
6.18 Camden staff interviewed expressed a view that organisations (in particular those supported through CCF and
OSYP) are more resilient, less financially dependent and more realistic about the need to prepare for reduced
funds than they were several years ago. Examples of more resilient organisations highlighted were the
Calthorpe Project (OSYP), C4 (Community Centers consortium), North London Cares (IDF2 and ECF2) and The
Good Gym (IDF). There is also, however, recognition that by playing a dominant role in organisations’ funding including provision of core funding – the council may also inhibit independence.
6.19 85% of VCS survey respondents agree that Camden’s investment has enabled them to develop partnerships
with other organisations:
 “This is true even with partners who were very apprehensive about working with LGBT people including
the Bangladeshi, Somali and communities of faith. We work with all schools, adult, further and higher
Janice Needham & Ann Sanders
19
8 July 2015
Evaluating Camden’s VCS investment and support programme
education establishments, 130 local groups or businesses, all elements of the community safety
partnership and all departments of the council.”
“We already had a strong network but this recent investment programme has allowed us to take this
further, e.g. creating the Camden Community Centres consortium.”
“We collaborated with several organisations in Camden that we had not had links with before and have
made excellent sustained relationships with them. The grant team and the commissioner for Camden
were quite simply excellent in the support they offered us in doing this.”


6.20 Staff respondents broadly agreed, citing of the co-production approach to developing the Community Centres
evaluation framework as a good example of partnership working.
 “Community centres relationship is stronger than ever, lots of examples of brokering relationships across
the programme, so I think this has been a success. BUT we were starting from such a low base and I
believe a lot more can be done on this.”
Key findings



On the whole the “funder plus” approach seems to be recognised and highly valued by VCS
organisations – particularly in relation to capacity building and the convening / collaboration
aspects.
However VCS organisations highlight a need for a more coherent approach across all council
departments.
There is potential to incorporate the funder plus approach within the Theory of Change and
establish indicators of success so that benefits can be more effectively articulated and evaluated.
Janice Needham & Ann Sanders
20
8 July 2015
Evaluating Camden’s VCS investment and support programme
7. VCS Investment and Support Programme: Strategic Fit
7.1
This section considers the context for the investment and support programme, including relationships with
other departments, its contribution to the Camden Plan and assessment against the Camden Investment
Tests.
VCS Investment and support programme and other departments
7.2
The CTS team has a good relationship with the sector and there are good examples of the team brokering
relationships with officials in other departments. However there is potential for this area of activity to be
further developed alongside raising awareness of the VCS investment and support programme and its
benefits, especially to commissioners of services.
7.3
There is evidence of a lack of awareness of the programme among colleagues. This evaluation should provide
information to support a clearer articulation of the programme benefits.
7.4
The complex programme structure of five programmes, each with a set of outcomes, impedes clear
communication of the programme more widely within the council. There is scope to develop a simpler
outcomes framework enabling project information to be more readily consolidated across themes and
presented both to colleagues and also externally, adapting the methodology used in this evaluation.
7.5
An example of the “added value” of the programme and the funder plus approach is a stronger relationship
between the sector and the CTS team, which has enabled new partnerships to form and bring in an additional
£12m, though Ageing Better Camden 9 and Families with Multiple and Complex Needs. Partnerships
developed over past 3 years have brought in a total of £ 12.2 million as follows:
 CTS team support for developing VCS and statutory sector partnership with Islington to address multiple
complex needs - funding bid of £7.8 million10
 A partnership of VCS and public sector organisations (led by Age UK Camden) secured £4.5m investment
over 6 years to tackle isolation and loneliness amongst older people in Camden. Funded by the Lottery’s
Ageing Better Programme, the CTS team and colleagues from Adult Social Care supported the lead
organisation, Age UK Camden.
7.6
Another result of the CTS team brokering relationships with the rest of the council is the Our Camden project.
In this case, a consortium of VCS providers won the tender to deliver a project to reduce isolation amongst
older people.
Camden Plan and Investment Tests
7.7
As discussed in Section 2, funded projects set their own outcomes within the broad parameters of the
programme. However there is considerable synergy between the outcomes delivered (as described in Sections
3 and 4) and those stated in the Camden Plan.
7.8
In July 2014, Camden’s Cabinet agreed four investment tests 11 to help make the best possible choices on
where to focus spending in the future.
 Investment test one: tackle inequality
 Investment test two: focus on outcomes
 Investment test three: invest in early intervention where possible
 Investment test four: make every pound count
9
http://www.ageuk.org.uk/camden/ageing-better-in-camden/
https://www.biglotteryfund.org.uk/global-content/programmes/england/multiple-and-complex-needs
10
11
http://www.camden.gov.uk/ccm/navigation/council-and-democracy/publications-and-finances/camden-financialchallenge/how-we-re-tackling-the-challenge/
Janice Needham & Ann Sanders
21
8 July 2015
Evaluating Camden’s VCS investment and support programme
7.9
There is some evidence that the investments in the programme do meet the Camden Investment Tests. The
VCS survey responses were as follows:
 85% agreed that Camden’s investment had enabled them to tackle inequality (44% strongly agreed)
“Camden's investment in the voluntary sector has long term benefits for its residents because it enables
marginalised people who would have otherwise fallen through statutory services net.”
 86% agreed that Camden’s investment had enabled them focus on outcomes (30% strongly agreed). This
is in line with findings in Section 3 that the adoption of outcomes based project funding and training and
support on outcomes measurement has enabled organisations to develop clear outcomes.
 76% agreed that Camden’s investment had enabled them to invest in early intervention where possible
(31% strongly agreed). This is supported by examples of projects described in Section 3 demonstrating
early intervention such as new ways of engaging volunteers to support older people in their own homes;
support to BME families to support better links with education, health services and the police.
 72% agreed that Camden’s investment had enabled them to ‘make every pound count’ (38% strongly
agreed).
“We have made every pound count, recruiting volunteers who are interested in our work, who have
received the training and delivered the intervention - so that our 'cascade model' has enabled maximum
use of resources and made every pound of the grant go a long way.”
The amount allocated to project grants is equivalent to £188 per beneficiary.
Key findings




There is potential to further develop awareness of the programme and relationships with the
VCS sector among colleagues in other departments, especially commissioners.
There is scope to simplify the programme structure and develop an outcomes framework,
enabling project information to be consolidated across themes.
Although the programme design happened prior to the development of the Camden Plan, the
programme is contributing to the Camden Plan outcomes.
There is evidence that the investments in the programme meet the Camden Investment Tests.
Janice Needham & Ann Sanders
22
8 July 2015
Evaluating Camden’s VCS investment and support programme
8. Findings
8.1
A summary is provided below of the key findings of this evaluation. Although recommendations were outside
the scope of this assignment, there are a number of areas that the council might wish to consider in
developing its future funding programme and these are highlighted in the text boxes.
Impact on communities of project funding
8.2
There is evidence that the VCS Investment and Support Programme has been highly effective in addressing
inequality, as well as supporting innovation and strengthening of organisations. As a result of project grants
(Equalities and Cohesion Fund, Innovation and Development Fund and Volunteering, Volunteering, Giving and
Exchange Fund), 34,424 individuals benefitted from 104 grants in the period 2012-15, accounting for 15% of
Camden residents.
8.3
Outcome themes include: improved health and wellbeing; improvements related to employment, education
and training; improved community cohesion and engagement with the criminal justice system; reduced risk of
crime and improved access to advice and support services. Almost half of projects deliver health and wellbeing
outcomes and about a third of these contributed to improved health and wellbeing for older people. About a
third of projects are delivering outcomes related to employment, education and training.
8.4
There is a strong focus on inequality, engagement and innovation, with these being common strengths across
all outcome themes. Projects led by “communities of interest” (e.g. Somali, LGBT communities) appear to be
particularly effective in contributing to community cohesion outcomes. Volunteering plays a key role,
combining developing skills and improving employment prospects with improving support for Camden
residents. However given that volunteer opportunities are provided by projects across all project funding
programmes it may not be necessary to have a separate volunteering fund.
8.5
Project funding reports provide rich information and there is potential to summarise and aggregate this as
demonstrated in this report. However despite support to organisations in outcomes monitoring the
information reported is of variable quality.
Issues to consider for any future funding programme




There is potential to simplify the programme structure and develop an outcomes framework for
individuals, communities and organisations, enabling project information to be consolidated across
themes. This approach could be underpin a revised Theory of Change which should also incorporate the
“funder plus” approach and establish indicators of success, so that the benefits can be more easily
evaluated. Outcomes frameworks could also support links with other parts of the council.
There is a continuing case to support innovation but this may benefit from clearer criteria (and a sharper
focus) – possibly linking into a wider agenda. Fewer self-assessment measures on innovation with clear
criteria as well as information on numbers of beneficiaries would support more effect assessment of
innovation.
Greater support is needed for monitoring of outcomes as the information reported is variable in quality.
Volunteering plays a key role, combining skills development and improving employment prospects with
improving support for Camden residents. However given that volunteer opportunities are provided by
projects across all project funding programmes it may not be necessary to have a separate volunteering
fund.
Outcomes for VCS organisations
8.6
The programme has provided financial and other support to strategic community based resources in the form
of the Community Centres and Open Spaces for Young People funds. Investment in strengthening community
centres has contributed to an overall increase in income of 24% (2011/2 to 2013/14). The reliance on Camden
Council funding has decreased, with over 50% of income now from other sources. Self-generated income has
Janice Needham & Ann Sanders
23
8 July 2015
Evaluating Camden’s VCS investment and support programme
almost doubled and now accounts for 25% of income. Ten of the 17 community centres have had an increase
in income, with significant increases for six centres.
8.7
There is a lack of consistency in the quality and structure of information on organisations funded under the
Community Centres Fund and assessing “distance travelled” is challenging. However there is evidence to show
that some Community Centres have made progress over a period of several years against the programme
outcomes particularly in relation to becoming independent, robust and sustainable and developing
partnerships and joint funding opportunities.
8.8
Organisations funded through OSYP have been supported to strengthen their governance, diversify income
and collaborate. It is not possible to evaluate progress as this fund has only been operating for one year.
8.9
Organisations receiving rent relief appear to be providing activities and services for those in need, with 88% of
organisations supporting children and young people; 74% supporting disabled people; 68% supporting elderly
and 50% supporting people of particular ethnic/racial origin. Over three quarters of those receiving rent relief
responding stated that Camden funding helped their organisation meet the Camden investment tests.
Issues to consider for any future funding programme


An outcomes framework for the CCF programme is now in place for the funding period 2015-16, against
which Centres are to provide evidence in December 2015, focusing on individuals and communities.
However there is still a need to demonstrate “distance travelled” for organisations as a result of the
investment. Adopting a standard and accredited tool such as PQASSO may help in supporting Community
Centres and other organisations to tracking development and improvements in the future.
Basic criteria could be developed for organisations receiving rent relief, including appropriate registration
with a regulatory body, timely submission of accounts and amounts received as rent relief shown in
accounts.
Progress of the VCS funding programme in meeting its Guiding Principles
8.10 On the whole the “funder plus” approach seems to be recognised and highly valued by VCS organisations,
particularly in relation to capacity building and the convening / collaboration aspects. This is underpinned by
the four ‘Guiding Principles’ of the programme:
 Fostering a more collaborative and equal working relationship between the council and the VCS
 Focusing support (financial or otherwise) on success and innovation
 A commitment to measuring outcomes and understanding what works and why
 Promoting sustainable income streams for Camden’s local VCS
8.11 Evidence provided suggests that VCS funding support has supported Camden’s local VCS to diversify its income
sources and become more financially sustainable. In addition the programme focus on outcomes, and support
for training in this area, appear to have delivered benefits – 75% agree that the council’s investment has
contributed to their ability to demonstrate impact. Organisations are very positive about their relationship
with the council (with 84% of survey respondents agreeing that Camden’s investment has led to improved
relationships with the council), in particular the CTS team. The CTS team have often facilitated contacts with
other departments; however there is potential to further develop awareness of the Investment and Support
Programme and relationships with the VCS sector among colleagues in other departments, especially
commissioners.
8.12 Although the programme design did not require this, the programme is contributing to the Camden Plan
outcomes. In addition there is evidence that the investments in the programme meet the Camden Investment
Tests.
Janice Needham & Ann Sanders
24
8 July 2015
Evaluating Camden’s VCS investment and support programme
Issues to consider for any future funding programme
Developing an outcomes framework and theory of change for any future programme will help colleagues in
the CTS team to communicate the aims and impact of the VCS investment programme across the council. It
will also enable the investment programme to integrate any strategic outcomes for the council.
Janice Needham & Ann Sanders
25
8 July 2015
Evaluating Camden’s VCS investment and support programme
Appendices (separate document)
Appendix 1.
Research questions
Appendix 2.
Contributors
Appendix 3.
Theory of Change
Appendix 4.
Evaluation framework
Appendix 5.
Summary of methodology
Janice Needham & Ann Sanders
26
8 July 2015