Don't cut funding to the voluntary sector

Many councils are reducing or slashing grants to voluntary organisations because they are easy targets for cost-cutting. Stephen Bubb warns this is a short-sighted strategy as not only is the voluntary sector delivering long-term savings but will increasingly be picking up services local government can no longer deliver. At a recent dinner co-hosted by my organisation, a room full of public and voluntary sector chief executives discussed ways of delivering better outcomes for local communities at the same time as responding to significant cuts in public spending. One charity leader described the situation as ‘a terrifying experiment in which we are all guinea pigs', while her counterpart in local government expressed his belief that the next financial year would be ‘the most challenging for over a century.' The innovative and outcomes-focused interventions designed and delivered by charities have been fundamental in turning round the lives of some very vulnerable people and have often succeeded where the state has failed. Across the country, we all know that difficult decisions are being made about how the dwindling local authority settlement can be distributed. Local authorities are grappling with the difficult issue of how to continue funding services that protect the most vulnerable, while also investing in the active, healthy communities that will be necessary to build the Government's Big Society vision and drive forward major reforms to public service delivery across health, social care and children's services. Since joining the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations (ACEVO) a decade ago, I have been vocal in promoting the role that charities can play in delivering high quality and effective services in a way that saves the state money. Take, for example, Addaction's ‘Breaking the Cycle' programme which provides tailored solutions to families affected by substance misuse. Of the families involved 81% significantly reduced their use of drugs or alcohol, 86% improved their skills as parents and a similar proportion experienced better financial prospects as they began looking for work, volunteering or going on college courses. Seven months of Breaking the Cycle support for one family costs approximately £1,700, with an estimated return on investment to the state of 1 to 11. Similarly, the St Giles Trust ‘Through the Gates' programme has been hugely effective in bringing down reoffending rates, delivering direct savings to the state of between £10 and £34 for every pound invested. The innovative and outcomes-focused interventions designed and delivered by these charities have been fundamental in turning round the lives of some very vulnerable people and have often succeeded where the state has failed. It will be essential, therefore, that, during this period of fiscal restraint, these and the many other organisations – both large and small – that are delivering in a similar way are enabled to survive and even scale up to meet an anticipated rise in demand. In recent months, however, I have been contacted by an increasing number of charity chief executives who are pointing to examples of local authorities who seem to have identified the funding allocated to the voluntary sector as ‘an easy cut to make.' Already we have heard that Hampshire CC has withdrawn £330,000 of funding from organisations delivering children's services, Northumberland CC is proposing to make £300,000 cuts across a number of departments and Kirklees MBC has cut £200,000 from a project offering training to 150 local charities and 2,500 volunteers. In some areas I hear of statutory agencies who appear to be actively retrenching, breaking lines of communication with the sector that have developed over many years and creating uncertainty in the market. This is exactly the wrong approach and will ultimately have a profoundly negative impact on the lives of the people they aim to support. Many will be aware of cases where this is already happening. The Innovative Vision Organisation, for example,which was established by Africans living with or affected by HIV/AIDS to provide care, support, information and advice was told it will face a 13% cut in the public funding it receives and is now threatened with insolvency. Elsewhere, the Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Centre in Croydon is facing a £27,000 a year cut in council funding, which, they suggest, means that the organisation will be able to respond to 2,700 fewer calls to their sexual violence helpline. As I said in a speech to ACEVO's national conference, retrenchment and organisational isolation must not become a fallback for any chief executive. This is a time when leaders from all sectors must be keeping lines of communication open, developing networks of peer support, looking at the potential for partnership working and drawing on a broad range of expertise to ensure efficiency savings are driven across the public service delivery spectrum. We all recognise the huge challenges facing local government, but we must also be clear that the voluntary sector should be seen as part of the solution, rather than an easily expendable delivery partner. The sector should be involved in constructive discussions on mapping future service provision in a local area and ensuring that the voices of underrepresented or vulnerable groups are not ignored in the drive towards increased devolution and localism. In turn, the sector must not become inward-facing. Across the board, organisations must look at where they can drive down the cost of service delivery and be open to learning from the experiences of innovators from the private and public sectors. This will not always be easy, but it seems increasingly clear that the success or failure of the Big Society vision will depend on developing a new era of reciprocity and renewed commitment to collaboration between the public and voluntary sector. This is a goal that ACEVO and the Local Government Improvement Programme will continue to work towards over the coming months, bringing together as many chief executives as possible to share their experiences, examples of best practice and expertise on how to manage the complexities of budget cuts and massive public service reform. I would urge all decision-makers in local government and across the voluntary sector to engage in these discussions which, we hope, will form the basis for a new approach towards the delivery of improved outcomes for local communities. Stephen Bubb is chief executive of the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations

Title

Don't cut funding to the voluntary sector

SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING