1. Preeti Kathrecha Social Policy Research Centre Middlesex University

2.  An evaluation of the impact of the BAN partnership, including leadership, operation and effectiveness and Impact on BMER communities in London  A critical evaluation of the BAN delivery model including shortcomings and recommendations for improvements  An evaluation of the monitoring tools

3.  An integrated network of advice services, delivered for and by the people from London's migrant refugee communities.  40 organisations – history of working together  Facilitated by AdviceUK  Elected steering group of member orgs  A partnership of 18 agencies in BAN received London Councils funding  A unique network

4.  BAN has been well funded by London Councils since 2008 “A model for partnership working able to deliver services across the whole of London”  Neither of BAN’s two applications to London Councils for 2013-2015 was recommended for funding.  The Grants Committee decided not to change the recommendation.  BAN submitted a petition with 868 signatures to the London Councils Leaders' Committee in March 2013 calling on them to save BAN's funding – it decided against funding BAN.

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

7. Percent Welfare benefits82.8% Immigration & Asylum72.4% Housing69.0% Education55.2% Employment55.2% Health51.7% Domestic violence48.3% Family support48.3% Training48.3% Racism, equality & discrimination41.4% Culture/Arts31.0% Social Care27.6% Sports6.9%

9. Percent Law Centre/Legal Service93.1% Other BAN members82.8% Charity82.8% Local authority69.0% Health service69.0% CAB65.5% Private solicitor58.6% NHS51.7% Further Education48.3% Government31.0% Schools27.6% Other10.3%

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

11.  81% rate overall quality of BAN services as very good or good  Quality of support and advice (Very useful, useful): ◦ Support with campaigns (59%) ◦ Engagement with policy/strategy (52%) ◦ Arranging training (52%) ◦ 1:1 development support (42%) ◦ Fundraising support (38%) ◦ Business planning (17%) ◦ Other support/advice/activity (35%)

12. BenefitPercent Increased networking82% Enabled collaborative working75% Greater representation in forums, networks, local strategic partnerships68% Participating in training courses61% Improved access to funding57% Strong basis to develop services57% Improved access to resources54% Better monitoring and evaluation46% Increased capacity building46% Achieved a quality assurance accreditation43%

13. Strongly Agree/Agree Neither Agree nor disagree Able to access entitlements74%11% Aware of local services74%15% Aware of their rights78%15% Cohesive59%19% Empowered63%26% Forthcoming59%22% Other11%15%

14.  Strong collaborative processes  Genuine commitment to work together – despite no funding “elsewhere it's about me, me, me, my organisation- not here”  “legitimises by the sector by bringing us together”  CAB ‘one stop shop’ Vs ‘hand holding’ life journey approach  Both Pan London and local influence and expertise  BAN model inspires local models

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

16.  To what extent would you be able to access similar help/assistance if BAN did not exist? ◦ A limited amount 62% ◦ With difficulty 23% ◦ Not at all 8%

17.  93% agree they would continue membership regardless if specific funding was attached  How BAN can support organisations: ◦ Enable us to conduct research 54.2% ◦ Provide legal and contractual advice 45.8% ◦ Assist with monitoring & evaluation 33.3% ◦ Assist with premises issues 29.2% ◦ Conduct governance audits 25.0%

19. “There is no other equivalent network in London and our communities although different, face some similar issues. Working together and sharing our concerns makes us stronger and more visible.” “The BAMER sector needs more visibility and participation. We need to do more policy and advocacy work together, BAN is an excellent tool to allow us to do this.” “I was amazed at how positive everybody was to working with each other, at no stage has anybody got up and walked out that door, slammed the table or hit anybody, there were no fights, it's done, it was incredible.”