Salary: London Living Wage: (£10.55 per hour, £19,201 p.a. @2018-19 level)

Job details

We are looking for someone to start this one-year internship in April 2019, if possible.  The post holder will be paid the London Living Wage rate, 35 hours per week (or part time pro rata, by negotiation).  The internship is a fixed term appointment and will not lead to permanent employment at the Trust at the end of the twelve months.  Support with job search, and opportunities for gaining experience and skills, are part of our offer.

Purpose of Role

The role of the intern is to:

1. Support the day to day delivery of three of our programmes: Criminal Justice, Migration and Economic Justice (we estimate that around 60% of the post-holder’s time will be spent on this element of the role).
2. Assist with the Trust’s communications function (around 20%)
3. Enable the post-holder to gain an insight into options for career development in addition to experience gained through work activities (up to 20%).

The internship is designed to be mutually beneficial.  The successful candidate will gain knowledge of social justice issues and experience in partnership working, the charity sector, working in a team, supporting programme managers and the work of a busy office.  The Trust is both well-run and well-governed; the experience of working in such an organisation will provide the successful candidate with an excellent grounding for any future role.

We expect that up to a day a week will be spent on additional development activities, for example shadowing staff, attending external events for personal learning or perhaps regular volunteering.  There is no budget to pay for qualifications or formal training activities, as the opportunity for learning through the role is so extensive.

Person specification

1. Strong attention to detail
2. Good written and spoken English
3. IT skills including Word, Excel (experience of databases and web administration desirable but not essential)
4. Strong organisational skills with ability to develop and use systems
5. Good communication and interpersonal skills, desire to support others in delivering their objectives
6. Well-developed time management skills with ability to juggle tasks, manage competing priorities and work to deadlines
7. Excellent writing skills with the ability to communicate complex, sensitive issues clearly and effectively to internal and external audiences
8.  Direct personal experience of one or more of the Trust’s priority areas of work (migration/refugee issues; the criminal justice system; economic disadvantage)
9. Demonstrable commitment to the promotion of social justice and equality, and willingness to work within the Quaker-derived values of the Trust

 Applications

If you would like to apply please download an application form and other information below. Follow the applications instructions carefully.  The deadline for completed applications is 12 noon on Friday 29 March.  Applications received after the closing date will not be accepted.  Interviews will be held on Thursday 11 April 2019 at the Trust’s offices.

Please note that any offer of employment will be made subject to references and confirmation of the right to work in the UK.

How to apply

Application form

Job Description

Equal opportunities form

Complying with preventing illegal working legislation

The Access Social Investment Infrastructure Fund is one of three major initiatives funded through Access’ Capacity Building programme, along with the Reach Fund and the Impact Management Programme.

The idea of the new Social Investment Infrastructure Fund is to strengthen social investment infrastructure both in existing social investment intermediary organisations and also in more generic and traditional infrastructure bodies.  This Fund looks like it will have a significant impact on existing infrastructure bodies such as CVSs which have not so far been confident or ‘upskilled’ enough to advise their stakeholders on social investment or give them investment readiness support.  Our hope is that it will also be used to improve tools and data capture mechanisms for use across the social investment field.

As a social justice foundation with an interest in social investment, Barrow Cadbury Trust has long had concerns that the investment products on offer do not always serve large sections of the social sector. Blended finance and better shared tools should have a transforming effect on new entrants and existing investees alike.

What next?

We will be advertising for a fund manager in the New Year so please keep an eye on this website, on our fortnightly enews, and on Twitter, for further information if you are interested.  Materials and relationships will be developed over the next few months and we will put out a call for expressions of interest later in the year.

The work of community organisations has always been underpinned by three key values. The first, and most obvious, is self-help: providing services when the state can’t or won’t, or when self-help is actually more effective or appropriate. Second is self-organisation. Community groups are often at their best when they’re movements for change in society, transforming attitudes about everything from homosexuality to disability to mental health. And finally, there’s independence: working strategically with local and national government to make life better by closing gaps in services and loopholes in the law.

That’s the history: what about today? In the current climate, community groups are facing unprecedented budgetary pressures. Making the Cut asked what impact is this having on frontline services and the people using them?

To get a better idea brap has been regularly speaking to community organisations in Birmingham for over a year. These organisations work with some of the most vulnerable in the city and cover a range of sectors, including housing, domestic violence, and youth employment.

What we’ve found is that cuts to spending and changes to public service design are forcing individuals to go to community organisations for the support they need. Whether it’s welfare changes, the closure of local housing advice offices, reductions in youth services, or countless other things, people are increasingly turning to local voluntary sector organisations for help and advice. Between November 2014 and July 2015, for example, 77% of community groups said they had faced a ‘significant’ increase in demand for their service.

But that’s not all: over the same period, 88% of project participants had to make changes to their work because of cuts to funding. For most this meant changes to admin and management support. A lot of organisations have also said there is less funding for overheads and the ‘softer’ activities that help create a fuller, more holistic support service.  At the same time funding has become more short-term, making it harder for organisations to invest in their sustainability and to plan long-term interventions. A youth service, for example, might find itself in the unhelpful position of spending a few weeks working with a troubled young person only to have them referred back to the organisation some months later. Having more time with the individual in the first place might have allowed the agency to really get to grips with the problems they faced, giving the young person the confidence and resilience to solve their problems independently.

What is more, community groups are finding it harder to lobby local and national government about the concerns they have. This is partly because with fewer resources and increased demand, most voluntary organisations just don’t have the time to challenge this cycle of diminishing returns. For most the time available to analyse policy, engage with decision-makers, and draw out the strategic implications of new policy, practice, or legislation on their day-to-day work has been massively reduced.

Additionally, the constraints on speaking out are also partly because contractual relationships can make it harder for community groups to say what they need to. Increasingly, commissioning contracts – not just locally but nationally too – are stipulating that organisations can’t speak out about the impact of funding cuts. And many organisations don’t want to risk the relationship they’ve built up with their commissioner because funding is so tight. The customer is always right.

Since the report was published a number of local councillors and council officials have expressed concern about its findings. As communities see the impact of funding cuts really start to hit vulnerable people, most decision makers have said they are keen to deepen their links with the voluntary sector (and, in fact, some community organisations have recently told us they’ve noticed a move toward greater partnership working). Some respondents have since promised to press for formal mechanisms with which the sector can talk to and engage new governing bodies (such as the West Midlands Combined Authority). Others have offered to explore how the contents of contracts between the council and community groups are communicated, as, they claim, the intention has never been to stifle the voice of the sector.

This is a crucial exercise.  For  we ignore the work, expertise, local intelligence, and advice of voluntary organisations at our peril. Many have a unique insight into the cumulative impact of welfare reforms and public service changes. There is a role for public authorities now, more than ever, to engage community organisations in discussion about how to ensure vulnerable and excluded groups aren’t being left behind. And there’s a role for us, too, as a society to think carefully about what kind of voluntary sector we want to see. Because at the moment there’s a danger we’ll lose the side of it that campaigns, and agitates, and demands. We can’t just be content for community groups to fulfil the first of the values we outlined at the start. Historically, community groups have built hospices, sheltered refugees, and made public transport accessible for the disabled. If we forget this role, we are forgetting its potential. We are forgetting its vitally important role of holding up a mirror to society and speaking truth to power.

Our new work supported by Barrow Cadbury Trust will feed into the ‘Making the Cut’ project by creating a series of voluntary sector “conversations” around social cohesion and inclusion in Birmingham.  Watch this space.

For more information about the Making the Cut project go to www.brap.org.uk/projects/making-the-cut

Here’s a quick question for you. For every £100 that a man working in Birmingham earns, how much do you think a woman earns? Ninety five pounds? Ninety pounds? Maybe as low as £85?

We’ll reveal the answer at the end, so while you’re mulling over that here’s another one. The unemployment rate for white people in Birmingham is about 9%. What’s the rate for black people? If you doubled 9%, try again. The answer is actually three times higher – 26%. The unemployment rate for Pakistani and Bangladeshi residents is similarly out of kilter, currently standing at 18%. But here’s the really interesting thing. Back in 2004 the white unemployment rate was 6% while the black rate was 18% – again three times higher. Over the course of a decade, despite all its strategies and plans, the city was unable to reduce this stark inequality.

Why is this? Well, it’s not just Birmingham that’s been asking these questions. A number of cities – from Plymouth to Sheffield to York – have held fairness commissions in recent years to understand why entrenched inequalities persist. As useful and, in some cases, penetrating as these commissions have been they have tended to ignore the nuts and bolts of how public agencies ‘do’ equality – how they go about tackling discrimination, eradicating social patterns of disadvantage, and fulfilling their legislative equalities duties. This is a serious gap. Understanding why these approaches have failed may go some way to explain why serious inequalities continue.

New research From Benign Neglect to Citizen Khan, providing a bird’s eye view of equalities practice down the decades shows that many ideas have been resistant to change. Whereas society has changed greatly over the last 30 years, our equalities tools have remained remarkably similar. For example, in 1984 Birmingham City Council set up a Race Equality Unit with the aim of addressing institutional racism and improving access to council services. By 1989 the Unit had 31 staff, including race relations advisers in housing, education, and social services. The Unit’s annual report for that year shows its activities included training, monitoring uptake of services, helping different departments devise race equality schemes, improving access to services (mainly by translating information), and organising outreach events. If you were to include something about community development (helping local community groups to support disadvantaged people) these activities would all be part of the Standard Six – the half a dozen key actions that have dominated equality strategies and policies over the decades. They’re the things that crop up time and time again, regardless of the organisation’s sector or the demographics of its service users. Ideally, equality approaches would be dynamic – constantly evolving as we better understand what works. Unfortunately, this generally hasn’t been the case.

We don’t want to suggest that no progress at all has been made, of course. For one thing, the number of excluded groups considered by equalities practice has increased. For example, public authorities in Birmingham didn’t fund any lesbian or gay groups during the 1970s or 80s – a situation which would be subject to serious scrutiny today. In addition, equalities practice is beginning to explore the impact of leadership and organisational vision when it comes to embedding best practice, and organisations are beginning to focus more on partnership working. However, there are still some things we need to get better at.

Firstly, as agencies work together more closely we need to be crystal clear about what ‘equality’ means. This may sound simple, but if you speak to people in different organisations you’d be surprised at how many answers you get. This is no longer an option. Different agencies have to be on the same page when it comes to delivering fairer outcomes for the most vulnerable. Secondly, and connected with this, we need a shared vision of what good quality of life looks like for Birmingham’s residents. This needs to be informed by what people think is important and by the common needs of people from different communities in the city. In other words, it will involve much more clarity about the ‘domains’ of equality that are important to a wide range of people in the city. Thirdly, we need to devise a series of entitlements necessary to guarantee these needs and measure the provision of these through a multi-agency, multi-sector programme of activities.

Finally – and perhaps most importantly – we need to take equality, cohesion, and integration seriously. In addition to the Standard Six, the clearest feature arising from a historical survey of equalities practice is that we’re constantly reacting to things. Whether it’s an influx of new migrants, riots, or legislative changes, equalities practice has always been devised in response to a particular crisis or problem. We have never stood back, thought about the type of society we want to create and then pursued this vision with vigour. It’s clear that equalities practice has usually been seen as a side show to the main business of delivering services. This can’t continue. We need to get on the front foot. Rather than react to problems we need to proactively shape the future.

Which brings us back to where we started: how much does a Birmingham woman earn compared to a man? The answer is £81 for every £100 he earns – a gender pay gap of 19%. This is bad enough itself, but it’s also worth noting that at our current rate of progress it’ll be 2038 before pay equality is achieved (and this is assuming there will always be progress: between 2012 and 2013 the gender pay gap actually increased). It’s becoming increasingly obvious that our traditional approaches to equality are delivering progress at too slow a rate. If we do what we’ve always done we’ll get what we’ve always got. And what we’ve always got has let down too many people.

It’s time for a change.

How do we live together and relate to one another?  How can we make sure that everyone has an equal chance to lead a fulfilling and secure life?  What’s the best way to help each other when things go wrong that we cannot cope with alone? These are just some of the challenges facing our society today. They raise wider questions about our relationship with each other and with the government, the role of the welfare state, and the quality of everyday life. In a major new report out today, ‘People, planet, power’ we set out proposals for a new social settlement. It defends and builds on the best of Britain’s welfare state but calls for urgent changes, because there are new risks that threaten our well-being and our future: widening social and economic inequalities; accumulations of power by wealthy elites; and the imminent danger of catastrophic damage to the natural environment. Our new social settlement has three goals:

• Social justice – wellbeing and equality are essential for people to lead a good, fulfilling life, and to participate in society.
• Environmental sustainability – we must live within environmental limits to ensure that the natural resources needed for life are protected and preserved for present and future generations.
• A more equal distribution of power – people should be able to participate in and influence decisions at local and national levels, reducing current inequalities in power.

To achieve these goals, the report sets out new priorities for policy and practice. It highlights issues that tend to be overlooked by policy-makers and points to a new direction of travel. It represents NEF’s contribution to wider debates about what kind of society we want for the future. For a start, we cannot rely on continuing economic growth to produce more and more tax revenues to pay for more and better public services.  Instead, we must shift investment and action upstream to measures that prevent harm, rather than simply cope with the consequences.  We must value and nurture the ‘core economy’ – all those everyday human resources and unpaid activities that underpin the formal economy.  And we must reclaim and strengthen the idea of solidarity: understanding each other’s needs and interests, and sharing responsibility – not just in close-knit groups, but between groups of different kinds and across generations.

Building on this approach, the report outlines proposals for practical change:

Rebalance work and time:

• a new industrial and labour market strategy to achieve high quality and sustainable jobs for all, with a stronger role for employees in decision-making
• ­a gradual move towards shorter and more flexible hours of paid work for all aiming for 30 hours as the new standard working week
• ­an offensive against low pay to achieve decent hourly rates for all
• high quality, affordable childcare for all who need it

Release human resources:

• support and encourage the unvalued and unpaid assets and activities that are found in everyday life beyond the formal economy
• adopt as standard the principles of co-production so that service users and providers work together to meet needs
• ­change the way public services are commissioned to focus on outcomes and co-production

Strengthen social security:

• turn the tide against markets and profit seeking, developing instead more diverse, open and collaborative public services
• ­build a more rounded, inclusive and democratic benefits system

Plan for a sustainable future:

• ­promote eco-social policies – such as active travel and retro-fitting homes – that help to achieve both social justice and environmental sustainability
• ­offset the socially regressive effects of carbon pricing and other pro-environmental policies
• ­ensure that public institutions lead by example
• ­establish new ways of future-proofing policies

Seven decades on from William Beveridge’s ground-breaking report, it is high time for a wider debate about a new social settlement that meets the challenges of the 21st century.

Debbie Pippard reflects on the lessons learnt from The Foundry initiative

What did we learn from our experience developing The Foundry  –  a new human rights and social justice centre which has  opened recently in London?

One of the first things the founding organisations – Trust for London, the Ethical Property Company, the Barrow Cadbury Trust and LlankellyChase Foundation did was to establish a ‘special purpose vehicle’ in 2011 to develop and run The Foundry.  Then we raised more than £11m in finance; bought, refurbished and extended a building, secured tenants, and created a centre that will provide a focus for social justice and human rights activity.

The Foundry will provide work and meeting space to organisations working on human rights and social justice issues. Set up as a social investment initiative, it is funded through a combination of equity investment and loans from independent trusts, the Ethical Property Company, banks and financial institutions.  We also intend it to be an asset to the local community and those from further afield, who will be able to use the cafe, visit exhibitions and events, and take part in a programme of learning activities.

So looking back over the development period, what made it all come together, and what lessons have we learned?

PARTNERSHIP AND SHARED VISION
Undoubtedly it helped that the founder organisations knew each other well, had worked closely together, and were experienced and trusted partners.  This made it easier to create a shared vision, and has helped us through some tough moments.

This shared vision was established right from the start and has  guided our thinking on all aspects of the project; from the building design, to the planning, and to the associated education activities that will take place in the centre, to the detail of our performance framework.

THE RIGHT  PROPOSITION
And in a difficult economic climate, we were helped by having an investable proposition – a property-based development in the capital city, led by organisations with extensive experience in property investment, management and mission-related investment. These factors, combined with the clear social mission of The Foundry, enabled us to confidently approach other investors.

The lead partner in the management of the project, the Ethical Property Company, has over 15 years experience of developing and running shared office spaces with a social mission. Our advisors, particularly the architects, shared our enthusiasm for the project, and were chosen both for their architectural vision and for the added value that their experience of building and managing shared space brought to the project.

FUNDRAISING AND MISSION DELIVERY

Undoubtedly the fundraising element of the project was our biggest challenge. We started the project as the global financial crisis was unfolding – and had to decide early on whether or not to press ahead.  But Trusts and Foundations have the benefit of the long view, and we were confident that in time the market would pick up and we would be able to provide a return on investment.

Initially we hoped to raise most of the investment through equity. However, in an uncertain climate most investors preferred the security of a loan rather than the higher risk equity investment.  So we ended up with a more complex combination of loans and equity than we really wanted.  Because raising the funds was more complex than we thought it would be, we had to renegotiate ‘heads of terms’ with our primary  lenders at a late stage – a difficult process for all sides.  One lender withdrew, but others stepped in to fill the gap and allow the building work to get under way.  The complexity of the financial arrangements and the need to meet the differing due diligence requirements of different primary lenders was costly both in time and money;  it would be good  to see more convergence so that less precious social investment funding is spent on legal fees and more is available for delivery of the mission.

BEING BOLD

And we had to be bold. Finding a suitable building was challenging.  Our initial preference was for an area in East London, but prices were rising rapidly and were a little out of our reach. We widened our search and found a building while we were still some way off our funding target.  A decision had to be made whether to buy, and risk not being able to raise development funds, or continue fundraising and risk losing out in a price bubble.  At the same time we had to assess the risks of not being able to find enough tenants to fill the building. Fortunately market research indicated that there would be sufficient demand for space, and, as it turned  out, by the  time we opened, almost all space had been filled.

LESSONS

So what could we pass on from our experience to anyone thinking of embarking on a similar project?

• Make sure you have a strong partnership, with a shared vision and values and effective leadership from the Board

• Choose your delivery partners carefully. Ensure they share the vision and understand what the project is trying to achieve

• Carry out market research at an early stage to ensure the proposition is viable and will provide both sufficient financial return on investment and a clear social mission

• Ensure you understand the ‘risk appetite’ and return requirements of investors

• Develop a good performance framework to enable reporting on the extent to which the project delivers its social mission.

• Have flexibility in putting together the funding package, but be prepared to turn down offers if the required returns are too high

• Maintain your vision throughout the development stages

• Be prepared to take measured risks

• Celebrate your successes as you go along.

This blog was originally published by The Alliance magazine:  www.alliancemagazine.org.

Debbie Pippard chaired The Foundry project and is Head of Programmes at Barrow Cadbury Trust.

Over the last weeks we have witnessed commemoration of the March on Washington, the high-point of the US civil rights movement. A timely reminder of the difference that movements can make, but also a challenge to this generation to take action to end injustice. In 2013, racism is still a problem which pervades our society. Since our inception in 1968 Runnymede has been fighting to achieve race equality in the UK. We’ve done this through research, network building, and policy engagement. But recently, we’ve been feeling as if this isn’t enough. Race equality seems to have been filed in the ‘too difficult’ box. In order for discrimination to stop, the struggle against racism needs to be part of the public consciousness. We need to change our approach; we need everybody to not just feel that racism is not good for society, but to act to eliminate it.

Although the Equalities Act 2010 protects ethnic minorities from racial discrimination, your ethnic background still significantly impacts your life chances. In education, if you are from a Black Caribbean background you are three times more likely to be excluded from school, and data revealed by the BBC shows that 87,915 racist incidents were recorded between 2007 and 2011 in British schools. After school, youth unemployment is experienced by one in five white men, but one in two young black men. When seeking work you will have to send out 78% more job applications if you have a ‘foreign sounding’ name. On the street, you will be 7 times more likely to be stopped and searched if you are black than your white counterparts, and 2 times more likely if you are Asian. In health, black and Asian people with dementia are less likely to receive a diagnosis or receive it at a later stage than their white British counterparts. Chillingly, 106 people have been killed in racist and suspected racist attacks since Stephen Lawrence’s death in 1993.

It is everybody’s responsibility to change this. Racism is a product of society and as a society we have the power to end it. It can be solved, if we work together. We believe that it everybody makes changes in their own lives, workplaces and communities, we can cause a fundamental shift where treating people equally and accepting difference will become the norm.

This September we are launching ‘End Racism This Generation’, a movement to end racism in the UK. The key to its success will be informing people about the continued existence of racism and the damage it causes to all of us, and sharing knowledge of what works in combating it.
Fighting for racial equality is everyone’s business. End Racism This Generation will create an online platform where those who want to make change can gather, learn, and create new networks for change. We will also be hosting events all around England and Wales to connect people together and spread the message.

People will be able to pledge the action they plan to take on the End Racism This Generation website. Their pledges will be mapped by area, which will allow individuals, organisations and businesses to see what is going on around them. It will present the opportunity for people to create partnerships to end racism. Crucially, these pledges will inspire others to take actions, and show what works.

We want the pledges to be non-restrictive, no action is too small, no pledge too insignificant. We want everybody to feel empowered to end racism, regardless of the resources at their disposal. A pledge could simply be to find out more about racism in the UK or to spread the word on how to tackle it through social networks. On a larger scale, organisations could pledge to show how their work already reduces racial inequality or use the momentum of the campaign to launch new activities. Businesses can pledge to work harder to ensure employees reflect the make up of the population at all levels of the business, including the boardroom. Schools and universities can pledge to take action in ensuring equality of educational experience for its minority ethnic students. And everybody can support the campaign by a donation, by giving money, time or offering the resources at their disposal.

We want this collective action to signal a shared commitment to work towards a Britain without racism; a Britain which accepts differences between people but treats them equally in all aspects of their lives. No one person, or organisation can achieve this by themselves but together we can end it.

You can find out more about the campaign on the Runnymede Trust’s website, on Twitter and on Facebook.