Phase 4, July 2012
A report by London Voluntary Service Council
(LVSC)
London Voluntary Service Council
2nd Floor
200a Pentonville Road
London N1 9JP
www.lvsc.org.uk
info@lvsc.org.uk
020 7832 5830
Registered charity number 276886
Company registration number 1395546
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
Headline findings
The impact of the policy climate
Context: London and Londoners
Innovation at work
Over the years
LVSC analysis: a summary
Recommendations
3
3
4
4
5
5
7
1.7.1
1.7.2
1.7.3
1.7.4
...for London‟s voluntary and community sector
...for LVSC and other infrastructure organisations
...for policymakers
...for funders
7
7
7
8
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
About the Big Squeeze
Key findings from our 2009, 2010and 2011 surveys
LVSC‟s 2011 Big Squeeze Campaign
Key aims of the 2012 campaign
Methods
9
9
10
10
10
2.5.1
2.5.2
The Big Squeeze survey
Desk-based research
10
11
2.6
Our partners
11
3.1
Economic Policy: the impact in London
12
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.1.3
3.1.4
3.1.5
3.1.6
3.1.7
Poverty and financial inequality
Unemployment
Housing
Legal aid
Health, social care and health inequalities
Education policy and reform
Policing, crime and victim support
13
13
14
16
16
17
18
3.2
Other Government policy: the impact in London
18
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
Big Society
Localism
Open Public Services and the Work Programme
18
19
20
3.3
Cuts by the Department of Communities and Local
Authorities In London
21
3.3.1
22
3.3.2
3.3.3
The role of the Mayor of London and Greater London
Authority (GLA) in London‟s economic development
Cuts to the London Borough Grants Scheme
Cuts to local authority budgets in London
3.4
Cuts to the voluntary and community sector in London
26
3.4.1
3.4.2
Charity Commission registrations and removals in London
Local authority cuts to London‟s voluntary and community sector
26
28
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
The economic and political climate
Demand for services
Organisational change
Funding cuts
Support needed
Breakdown of respondents
30
38
45
51
58
65
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.10
5.11
5.12
5.13
5.14
London‟s voluntary and community sector hit hard
Advice services
Children & young people‟s services
Health & social care services
Employment & skills service providers
Specialist services for particular communities
VCS infrastructure
Crime and victim support
Housing and homelessness
Direct support to alleviate poverty
Volunteering
Preventative services
Local and wider area VCS organisations
Learning over the years
70
71
73
74
76
78
80
81
83
84
84
86
86
87
23
25
List of respondents
Acknowledgements
About LVSC
Comparison of survey across the eight English
core cities and London
2
Sixty-six per cent of organisations report an increase in demand for their services,
and 60% report a decrease in funding, making it an unfortunate reality that London‟s
voluntary and community sector are doing far more with much less. And they are
doing so by adopting innovative and flexible approaches to providing services for
their communities.
The Big Squeeze survey is a snapshot of the current impact the economic and policy
climate is having on the voluntary and community sector in London and the people
that use their services. It suggests that Londoners are being negatively affected by
recent local authority cuts, welfare reforms and unemployment.
The Big Squeeze 2012 survey was open to London‟s voluntary and community
sector organisations during May and June 2012 and was conducted in partnership
with London Funders, LASA, Women‟s Resource Centre, Trust for London, City
Bridge Trust, False Economy, NAVCA, Greater London Volunteering, London
Community Resource Network, Stonewall Housing, London Civic Forum, ROTA,
Children England, London Community Foundation and Ethical Property Foundation.
This year, the fourth year we conducted the survey, 252 organisations responded.
90% of organisations continue to change the way they work in order to adapt to
changes and better meet users‟ needs
60% reported a reduction in their overall funding in 2012-13 with a median
decrease of 21-40%
41% closed services over the year
29% expect to close services in 2012-13
66% have seen an increase in demand for their services in the last year,
particularly for advice services
71% expect demand to increase next year
50% think they will not be able to meet this increase
54% used their free reserves to cover running costs in 2011-12
At the end of 2011-12, only 34% reported more than three months expenditure
in free reserves
8% had no free reserves in 2011-12
85% think that cuts to local authority budgets had a particularly negative impact
on their communities
83% said that their users had been negatively affected by loss of services that
meet their needs, particularly advice services
63% said that welfare reforms had disadvantaged the communities with which
they work
3
56% said their users had been negatively affected by worklessness and 48%
said their users‟ health was worse
45% think that no Government policy had a positive impact on the communities
with which they work
20%, 22% and 38%, respectively, report Localism, Big Society and more
commissioning of public services from the independent sector had a negative
impact on their communities
Have the highest poverty rates in England
More than half live in households with a weekly income below the minimum
needed for an acceptable standard of living
82,000 to 133,000 households may be unable to afford their homes following
the welfare reforms
By 2016, only 36% of housing will be affordable to those receiving housing
benefit, compared to 75% pre-reform
The unemployment rate is the highest of any region and has increased from
6.7% in the second quarter of 2008 to 10.1% in the first quarter of 2012
Young people (under 25) have been disproportionately affected by
unemployment with more than 20% of young people in deprived areas of
London not in employment, education or training (NEET), compared to 16.2%
nationally
Voluntary and community sector employment fell by 9% nationally, with 60% of
those losing their jobs being based in London
This year saw an increase in long-term change to allow London‟s voluntary and
community sector to more effectively meet the needs of service users. Rather than
the more short-term, unsustainable changes mentioned in previous years‟ surveys
such as staff working unpaid, this year‟s survey saw an increase in strategic changes
and development of new business models to address the difficult economic climate.
Actions taken to meet users‟ needs
Last year‟s survey
Improve fundraising or diversify income
Collaboration or partnership within sector
Making staff redundant
Taking on more volunteers
Merger with another organisation
Collaboration with private sector
Better use of technology
Redesign services to meet needs
Develop new business model
Improve work with funder/commissioner
15%
51%
54%
56%
0%
1%
9%
16%
8%
2%
This year‟s
survey
60%
95%
39%
52%
11%
23%
36%
39%
50%
61%
4
This year there was a more optimistic response to the questions asked in each of the
four years‟ surveys. This suggests that London‟s voluntary and community sector
organisations are responding more effectively to economic challenges, although they
still face large reductions in resources.
2009
2010
2011
2012
Has the economic and/or policy climate
affected the communities you work with
over the last year?
Yes
95%
Yes
97%
Yes
97%
Yes
89%
Has demand for your services increased
this year as a direct result of the economic
or policy climate?
Yes
71%
Yes
68%
Yes
81%
Yes
66%
Are you confident that you will be able to
meet any increases in demand for your
services in the coming year?
No
80%
No
75%
No
77%
No
50%
Is your organisation changing the way it
works to cope with any changes this year?
Yes
78%
Yes
93%
Yes
94%
Yes
90%
What do you expect to happen to your
funding from the public sector in the next
year?
Not
asked
Decrease Decrease Decrease
53%
77%
53%
What do you expect to happen to your
funding from trust funders in the next
year?
Not
asked
Decrease Decrease Decrease
38%
28%
26%
LVSC recorded over 200 London voluntary and community sector organisations
closing completely in 2011-12, almost certainly an underestimate, when
compared with the loss of 41,000 London sector staff reported by the national
Labour Force Survey
Our new analysis of Charity Commission figures shows that in London
folllowing the UK 2008-9 recession, in 2009-10 new charity registrations tailed
off, the number of charities removed in a year almost doubled and net withinyear gains in charities registered was at its lowest for that year than any
between 2005 and 2012
Data from False Economy Freedom of Information requests responded to by 18
London boroughs found an overall cut of £87million in London local authority
funding for the VCS in 201011 (extrapolation suggests a capital-wide figure of
£160million in local authority cuts to the London VCS in 2010 -11). Particularly
affected were children & young people‟s services (in terms of the amount of
funding cut) and economic, including employment and skills services (in terms
of the proportion of funding cut)
Cuts to London Councils funding in 2011-12 accounted for a loss of over
£12million in income to London‟s voluntary and community sector in 2011-12.
Particularly affected in terms of communities were children & young people and
5
Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic communities; in terms of service provision,
infrastructure, arts & culture and advice
Research in LVSC‟s last Big Squeeze report suggested that in 2011-12, only
55% of the money previously contributed to the London Councils funding by
local authorities was transferred to local voluntary and community sector
organisations, and this contribution is likely to be reduced further in 2012-13 as
no local authorities have signed commitments to ring-fence those reclaimed
funds for the local sector
The Big Squeeze 2012 survey provided clear evidence of an increase in
demand for advice services in 2011-12 to address the immediate impacts of
unemployment, welfare reform and/or increasing poverty. It also suggests an
increase in demand for support to address the longer-term problems these
issues produce, such as support around employment & skills, health, housing &
homelessness issues and direct support to alleviate poverty through individual
grants and food parcels
The survey suggested that in 2011-12 there were again disproportionate levels
of closure for preventative services. Children & young people, employment &
skills and VCS infrastructure services, as well as specialist services that meet
the needs of particular communities were most affected. Disproportionate
closures of health & care services were again expected in 2012-13 (as also
reported in the 2010-11 survey)
LVSC‟s analysis suggests that voluntary and community sector organisations
working within a borough or neighbourhood may be being more severely
affected than those working over a wider geographical area. Local
organisations reported increasing competition for local contracts from national
organisations and the private sector and increasing barriers that reduced their
ability to bid for contracts
Increases in positive survey responses between 2009 and 2012 suggest that
the VCS in London is adapting successfully to the hard economic climate to
continue to meet its users‟ needs through more partnership working and
innovative changes in developing different sources of funding and business and
service delivery models. This indicates that the uncertainty brought about by
the announcement of major public funding cuts in 2010 may be subsiding, or
that such cuts have plateaued
However, the survey‟s evidence of continuing cuts to voluntary and community
sector funding (estimated at 22% over 2011-12 for the London survey
respondents), continuing closure of this sectors‟ services and disproportionate
impacts on specific services suggest that the sector in the capital is becoming
reduced in number and less diverse. Our respondents suggest that they are
already seeing increases in longer-term social problems such as inequality,
declining social cohesion, worsening health and well-being and more long-term
poverty and unemployment amongst their service users
At a time of increasing public sector spending cuts, this survey and other
research suggests that London is storing up long-term social problems which
VCS services are valiantly trying, but increasingly lacking in resources, to
address. This situation can only cost the capital more in the long term
6
1.7.1 ...for London‟s voluntary and community sector
Use needs assessments, evaluation and impact measurement to review and
develop ways of effectively meeting the needs of the communities you work
with: learn from the work of others that has already produced successful results
Review new technologies to see if they can increase your impact or efficiency
Engage with policymakers and funders, through accountable networks, to tell
them of the barriers their policymaking and funding procedures present to your
organisation, suggest solutions and to provide them with evidence of your
service users‟ needs
Consider partnership, collaboration and merger to ensure that you work with
other VCS organisations to most effectively meet your users‟ needs
1.7.2 ...for LVSC and other infrastructure organisations
Provide support to help VCS organisations develop accountable networks that
can inform policymaking and funding processes and ensure that this work is
also informed by the needs of policymakers and funders, to improve their
involvement
Support VCS organisations in developing strong evidence of their users‟ needs
and their own impacts, as well as barriers presented by commissioning
processes
Ensure more effective engagement between neighbourhood, local, regional
and national VCS organisations, including specialist and equalities groups, to
develop a collaborative „voice‟ for the VCS to work on issues that are panLondon
Develop more varied and innovative ways to ensure a less well-resourced
sector, in particular, smaller and frontline VCS organisations, can effectively
engage with you and access your support
1.7.3 ...for policymakers
Develop joint training to raise awareness and understanding across different
sectors
More effectively engage the VCS in equality and policy impact assessments
and use these more regularly to monitor the impact of policies and mitigate
against negative impacts
To preserve a diversity of VCS provision and service user choice, consider the
impacts of policies on different types of VCS organisations, for example, small
and specialist organisations, in contrast to large nationals or social enterprises,
rather than viewing the sector as a homogenous whole
Invest in development of simple ways to measure social and environmental
impacts and use such evidence provided by VCS organisations to inform
decision-making.
7
1.7.4 ...for funders
Work more in partnership with VCS organisations to ensure your operational
practice maintains the strengths and diversity of the VCS, reduces barriers to
their involvement and advocates and publicises evidence of the positive
impacts of the work you fund
Support VCS organisations in campaigning for policy change that provides a
cost-effective solution to systemic failures which negatively affect many
individual service users, and so ensure a more cost-effective solution
Support preventative work, particularly in promoting equality and increasing
social cohesion, by working with policymakers and the voluntary and
community sector to support equality analysis and policy impact assessment
Consider the impact funding practices have on ensuring the needs of the most
disadvantaged communities are met through the provision of specialist and/or
targeted VCS services, and be flexible enough to address any negative impacts
on such services and their service users as soon as they become apparent
8
LVSC produced its first “The Big Squeeze - We‟re in it Together”1 report in February
2009. Working with partners, we collected and analysed evidence from across
London‟s voluntary and community sector (VCS) through an online survey and the
use of case studies. The report aimed to inform debate on the role of our diverse
sector in helping Londoners through the recession. A full report was published in July
2009. The process was repeated in April 20102 and in May 20113. With this year‟s
fourth report, the Big Squeeze 2012 campaign provides a year-by-year “snap shot”
of the impact of the recession and subsequent public spending cuts on Londoners
and the VCS organisations working for them.
The trends predicted in the 2009, 2010 and 2011 reports have since been confirmed
by other more detailed research, suggesting that the negative impacts of economic
decline and public sector spending cuts were becoming worse. This was particularly
marked for those Londoners already suffering the most disadvantage.
This year, we revisited the original survey questions in order to provide a comparison
across the years, as well as adding additional questions to determine the impact of
new government policies and gain greater insight into the impacts identified in
previous years. The additional questions also aimed to help us more easily compare
our results with surveys conducted in other regions and cities.
In 2011-12, LVSC worked with the Councils for Voluntary Service (CVS) in each of
the eight English Core Cities4 to collate and compare the Big Squeeze survey results
with findings from other similar surveys of the VCS in our major cities (Appendix 4). It
was clear from the information collated from each city that there had been severe
cuts to services everywhere alongside rising demand which could not be met despite
some valiant efforts. Some information had been collected about the differential
effects on different groups; the group most often highlighted as being most badly
affected was children and young people, but services to older people, disabled
people and people from Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups had also
been lost. Demand for advice on housing and debt had risen; pressure on services
supporting people with mental health, alcohol and substance abuse problems was
rising; homelessness was increasing; and demand for charity such as food parcels
had escalated.
Findings across the cities were remarkably similar, suggesting that policies are
impacting the most disadvantaged communities in urban areas across England, and
lending further credence to the individual survey results. However, the higher
housing and other living costs in London suggest that poverty, homelessness,
overcrowding and poor quality housing are, and will be, an even greater problem in
the capital than in the other major English cities.
Each of the CVS, including LVSC, will continue to work with their own city to
maintain networks, provide collaborative leadership and support and contribute
9
knowledge and ideas about how best to manage cuts and maintain essential
services. LVSC intends to compare this year‟s Big Squeeze survey results with the
other English Core Cities, and with similar surveys from the other English region‟s
VCS networks5 in a later report.
An internal evaluation of LVSC‟s policy team work indicated that last year‟s
campaign produced the following evidenced impacts:
Informed three London Funders events supporting funders in the capital in their
work to address disproportionate cuts to advice, children and young people‟s
and infrastructure support services as identified in the report
Policymakers and funders informed us it had increased their understanding of
the impact of the cuts on the VCS and its service users in London
VCS organisations have used the evidence provided to campaign and lobby
and to provide evidence of need in funding applications
London Assembly members used its evidence to inform their questions on the
VCS to the Mayor of London
In Kensington and Chelsea, it was suggested that evidence from the Big
Squeeze report may have influenced the council to take more seriously the
impact of spending cuts on the VCS, and this may have been linked to their
decision to make cuts of only six per cent to their VCS funding
Contributed to a national policy document, collated through Core Cities, to
show national policymakers and funders the different effects of public spending
cuts in England‟s major cities
Informed the development and implementation of the Digital Switchover
programme in London
To develop an evidence base and raise awareness of the impact the economic
climate and public spending cuts, from the beginning of the 2008 UK recession
to the present day, are having on Londoners and the VCS organisations that
serve them
To make recommendations to reduce the negative impacts on the most
disadvantaged Londoners
To offer ideas and insights to organisations and policymakers about how to
reduce the impact of cuts on their users in future years
2.5.1 The Big Squeeze survey
The survey was developed using Smart Survey‟s internet-based software and ran
from 7 May to 18 June 2012, following a week-long test period. The link to the
electronic survey was circulated through LVSC‟s members and networks, posted on
numerous websites and sent out through e-bulletins and Twitter feeds. Telephone
reminders and support were used to increase survey responses from the 120
received in 2011.
10
There were 252 respondents to the 2012 survey from at least 213 different
organisations. Twenty-nine organisations answered anonymously and 10
organisations provided information about two different projects or services that they
ran. Two responses were from local authority workers who worked with the VCS in
their borough. Their responses were included as they provided an analysis of the
impacts on the VCS and the people they worked with in their local area. Exclusion of
these two respondents did not significantly alter the overall results or findings. Data
from the survey was adjusted as some respondents had answered „other‟ to a
question, but their response could actually be categorised within one of the tick box
answers provided.
Responses were also compared by the geographical area covered by the
organisation. „Wider area organisations‟ were classified as those operating across
several London boroughs, pan-London or nationally and „local organisations‟ as
those operating in a single borough or neighbourhood.
Finally, an attempt was made to weight responses according to the proportion of
respondents providing a particular service. This was done to ensure that high
proportions of respondents mentioning a specific sub-sector or community group
were not skewing the analysis.
2.5.2 Desk-based research
Research, case studies and surveys conducted by others were used to provide
additional local, regional and national context and further evidence to support and
explain the survey findings.
LVSC‟s partners in the 2012 Big Squeeze campaign were: Lasa, London Funders,
London Civic Forum, Women‟s Resource Centre, Greater London Volunteering,
Volunteer Centre Kensington and Chelsea, Stonewall Housing, London Community
Resource Network, Children England, ROTA, HEAR, City Bridge Trust, Trust for
London, Ethical Property Foundation, NAVCA and False Economy.
11
The current global economic crisis began with the banking crisis late in 2007. By
September 2008, the UK had moved into a recession lasting until late 2009. The
first Big Squeeze survey was conducted in response. The country finally emerged
from recession in the last three months of 2009, but economic growth remained
weak and recession returned in early 2012.
This fourth Big Squeeze survey therefore covers a period when the economy has
entered a „double dip‟ recession, at a time when the current government is aiming to
reduce the country‟s deficit through a programme of public spending cuts and there
is further financial uncertainty in Europe. Projections predict a slow and uncertain
economic recovery6.
Since May 2010, the coalition government has prioritised delivering a reduction in
public sector net debt, resulting from a rescue of the national banking sector. The UK
government‟s austerity programme to reduce the country‟s deficit includes spending
cuts in areas such as welfare, central government and local authority budgets and
public sector pay. The £18billion savings made by a series of welfare reforms will
have the greatest impact on the most deprived as they rely most heavily on benefits7
and are likely to have a greater impact in London, with its higher housing and living
costs8. In his March 2012 budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested that a
further £10billion of welfare savings may need to be made by 20169.
Despite this policy, the weak economic climate has led the Office for Budget
Responsibility to predict that public sector net debt will rise from 67% of Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) this year to a peak of 76% in 2014 -15, falling thereafter. It
forecasts that unemployment will continue to grow and hit a high of 8.7% nationally
and living standards will continue falling until 2014. The overall rise in unemployment
is expected to have a disproportionately negative impact in London, which has the
highest unemployment rates in England10, as will any fall in household income
adjusted for inflation in a city with the highest costs in the UK11.
One risk to the public finances is the government‟s failure to deliver its planned fiscal
consolidation. By the end of 2011–12, 73% of the planned tax increases had
been implemented. The spending cuts, however, are largely still to come – only 12%
of the planned total cuts to public service spending, and just 6% of the cuts in
current public service spending, had been implemented by the end of 2011-1212.
Despite this difficult economic climate, the government has also introduced wideranging policy reforms in almost every department.
12
3.1.1 Poverty and financial inequality
The recent economic crisis has caused a rise in unemployment, reductions in public
spending and higher levels of inflation than income growth. These are likely to lead
to a long-term fall in spending power, wealth and access to public services for many
London households, even once the economy recovers13. Income inequalities are far
wider in the capital than in the rest of the country. The poorest 50% of Londoners
have less than 5% of financial or property wealth. The richest 10% have 40% of
income wealth, 45% of property wealth and 65% of financial wealth and these
inequalities are growing14.
London has the highest rates of child (39%), working-age (25%) and pensioner
(23%) poverty in England15. High housing costs are a critical factor in explaining
London‟s high poverty rates. Taking housing costs into account, the working-age
poverty rate in London is 28%, compared to 21% in the rest of England, and the gap
has grown in the last decade16.
However, poverty is not restricted to the unemployed: just over half of children and
working-age adults in poverty in London live in working families17. The London Living
Wage calculates that Londoners need an hourly wage 22% higher than those in the
rest of England in order to remain above the poverty threshold18. More than half of
Londoners live in households with a weekly income below the minimum calculated to
provide an acceptable standard of living19.
Debt is also a problem for many Londoners. Thirteen per cent of Londoners were in
arrears with their debts as compared to the national average of 10% in 2010. In
London, since 2008, there has also been a 75% increase in average debt levels
among 17-24 year olds from £3,500 to over £5,50020.
3.1.2 Unemployment
The unemployment rate in London increased from 6.1% in the third quarter of 2007
to 10.1% in the first quarter of 201221. London has seen a bigger increase in
unemployment than the rest of the country since 2009. The unemployment rate is
highest in Inner East and South London, yet the increases during 2007-10 have
been highest in East and Outer London22.
A third of London‟s unemployed population is under 2523. In the second quarter of
2011, 16.2% of England‟s 16-24 year olds were not in education, employment or
training (NEET), up from 13.6% in the first quarter of 2008. However, there is
considerable variation in youth unemployment across London, and the more
deprived areas have a higher proportion of NEETS. Over 20% of 16-24 year olds in
North-East London are NEET, and 18-20% in East London24. These figures are
particularly concerning because of the high proportion of young people in London
and because those who are NEET have worse long-term employment prospects and
lower wages in any future employment after leaving school25. Despite, on average,
being better qualified than other young people in the rest of England, young
Londoners are more likely to be unemployed26.
The gap in employment levels in London is higher for lone parents27, working age
females, some ethnic and minority groups28, and disabled people in inner London29,
13
compared with the gap nationally. 24.9% of working age adults are economically
inactive in the capital compared with 23% nationally30.
The main aim of recent government reforms to the benefit system is to provide an
incentive for people to work by ensuring that they are better off in employment than
on benefits. However, because of higher costs, including housing, childcare and
transport31, London households have lower gains, and therefore weaker incentives,
than the rest of England to move from unemployment into low paid work. The
government has also introduced sanctions and conditionality measures intended to
encourage more benefit claimants into work. These include reducing benefit
payments to those who cannot show they are actively seeking work and moving lone
parents with a child over five onto Job Seekers‟ Allowance (JSA) or Employment and
Support Allowance (ESA) where payment is conditional on looking for employment32.
However, strengthening financial incentives to work and introducing sanctions for
those who do not actively seek work, are likely to have little effect if there are
insufficient jobs. The average ratio of JSA claimants to JobCentre Plus vacancies in
London was 9:1 in July 2011, compared to 6:1 nationally. Some of the highest ratios
in the country were reported in the most deprived London boroughs, including
Haringey (29:1), Waltham Forest (25), Hackney (22) and Lewisham (21)33. This
suggests there are currently insufficient jobs in London for the number of people
searching for work, and this problem is more acute than in areas of deprivation.
3.1.3 Housing
In London, there is a huge demand for, and shortage of, housing. The Institute of
Public Policy Research predicts that London will have a shortfall of 325,000 houses
by 202534. The cost of housing and rents in London has also continued to rise, even
during the economic difficulties (unlike other areas of England) and remains the
highest of any region. Overall, average house purchase prices are 121% higher in
London than nationally, with median social rents 17% and private rents 36%
higher35. There is also a greater proportion of people living in the private rented
sector in the capital compared to the country as a whole, and these people are more
vulnerable to losing their home or living in poor conditions because of their lack of
legal rights to a secure tenancy or to make improvements36.
Overcrowding is also a problem for Londoners. Nearly 11% of London‟s population
live in overcrowded housing, which is more than 800,000 people37. The number of
children in London living in overcrowded accommodation increased by 18% between
2008 and 2011, to 24%38.
Homelessness is another issue that particularly affects London. The capital now
accounts for 75% of all households in temporary accommodation in England. The
number of people accepted as homeless by local authorities in London had been
falling, but began increasing at the end of 201039. Between 2010 and 2011, it rose
significantly, by 27%40. In 2011-12, 5,678 people were seen sleeping rough on
London's streets: a 43% increase on 2010 -1141.
As part of the government‟s welfare reforms from 2011, the maximum Local Housing
Allowance (LHA), which is used to calculate housing benefit payments, was reduced
from the 50th to the 30th percentile of local rents. Further caps were introduced for the
14
maximum rents paid. In addition, from 2013, maximum LHA rates will be increased
by the usually lower Consumer Price Index inflation rate rather than by reference to
actual market rents which is likely, over time, to greatly increase the shortfall
between housing benefit payments and actual rent prices42.
The Welfare Reform Act 2012 also legislated for an overall benefit cap under a new
„Universal Credit‟ benefit system (the government‟s overarching welfare reform
package). This is essentially a further limit on housing benefit, particularly in London,
as the likelihood of breaching the cap is heavily dependent on housing costs.
Cumulatively, the changes will reduce the amount that households on benefits
receive to cover their housing costs. There has been much concern that these
changes will increase the likelihood of households going into rent arrears, becoming
more overcrowded, being made homeless or being forced to move to a different
neighbourhood, possibly away from jobs, schools and social networks.
Setting the maximum LHA at 30%, rather than 50%, of local rents will affect the
whole country proportionally. However, the LHA and Universal Credit caps are the
same across the whole country, despite widely different rental costs. The caps will
therefore disproportionately affect London, making it likely that those on benefits will
be prevented from living in some areas of the capital43. Estimates of the impact of
these reforms have predicted that up to 133,000 workless families in London will be
unable to afford their homes44: many more than in other regions of the country. Just
51% of London neighbourhoods are expected to be affordable to housing benefit
recipients in 2012, compared to 75% pre-reform, and this will be reduced further to
only 36% by 201645 .
.
Other government welfare reform policies linked to housing are likely to cause
disproportionate harm to certain groups of people in London. The increase in
deductions from housing benefit for „non-dependent‟ household members introduced
in April 2012 may force many „non-dependents‟ to move from their family home or
social networks. The introduction of the shared room rate for people aged 25-35
years, previously only applicable to under-25s, may have particularly harmful
implications for vulnerable single people with no option but to move into shared
accommodation.
Most of these changes only currently affect private tenants, because of their higher
rental costs. However, social renters will not be exempt from the changes: the
increase in non-dependent deductions from housing benefit payments and another
reform to reduce housing benefit for working-age recipients living in under-occupied
social housing may also result in these households going into rent arrears or moving
home46.
It is likely that the housing situation in London and the disproportionate impacts of
housing benefit caps in the capital will worsen as the London property market
continues to boom, increasing rents yet further. This is the result of a growing
population, insufficient housing construction to meet demand in the capital and
increasing overseas investment in London property as a result of its potential
investment returns and the UK‟s „favourable‟ tax rules47.
15
3.1.4 Legal aid
The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act achieved Royal Assent
in May 2012. Part of the Act aims to reduce the annual £2.1 billion legal aid bill by
“focussing legal aid on cases where legal help is most needed, where people‟s life or
liberty is at stake or they are at risk of serious physical harm, face immediate loss of
their home or their children may be taken into care”48. The cuts, coming into force
next year, will mainly affect legal aid for social welfare law by removing support for
most cases involving housing, welfare, medical negligence, employment, debt and
immigration.
It will take time to assess the impact of the Act. Some lawyers are likely to challenge
the availability of legal aid for specific cases, and others may decide to take on cases
on the less attractive no-win-no-fee terms the Act introduced. However, many claims
may simply no longer be viable to bring to court, reducing access to justice. Law
centres and Citizens Advice Bureaux will lose one of their main sources of funding
as a result of the legal aid cuts and may increasingly have to charge clients for the
advice they provide.
The Government has announced a £20 million per year fund for the advice sector for
2013-15 to compensate for expected losses to legal aid funding (although the sector
has estimated such losses to be £50 million per year)49. London has some of the
greatest need for advice services due to problems of poverty, but will be the greatest
loser of all regions from the cuts to civil legal aid50.
3.1.5 Health, social care and health inequalities
The Health and Social Care Act 201251 set into legislation the largest structural
reform of the NHS in its history52. Primary Care Trusts and Strategic Health
Authorities are to be abolished by April 2013 and new Clinical Commissioning
Groups53 led by GPs and other clinical staff will commission the majority of health
services. The Act allows many more health services to be commissioned from the
independent sector, with Monitor and the Care Quality Commission regulating
providers, while Monitor will simultaneously promote integration of services while
ensuring there are no „anti-competitive‟ practices.
In another major change, responsibility for public health at the local level will switch
to local authorities who will also co-ordinate local Health and Well Being Boards, as
well as commission HealthWatch, the successor to the patient and public
involvement networks previously known as Local Involvement Networks (LINks).
There will also be incentive payments to local authorities to reduce health
inequalities in their area.
The impact of such major structural change at a time when the NHS, although one of
the few government departments not subject to public spending cuts, has committed
to large efficiency savings, have led many commentators to predict a period of
uncertainty and reduced productivity for the NHS54. To add to those concerns, the
government has not published its Transition risk register for implementing the Act‟s
proposals, despite a Freedom of Information request55. In London, implementation of
the Act is complicated further by the establishment of a new London-wide Health
16
Improvement Board chaired by the Mayor of London, who has a general duty to
improve the health of Londoners and a statutory duty to reduce health inequalities in
the capital56.
The London Marmot Review Team has recently reviewed health inequalities in
London in light of the present economic and policy climate57. Their report concluded
that within London, there are significant variations in physical and mental health
outcomes between and within London boroughs relating closely to socio-economic
status.
They conclude that these health inequalities are mostly avoidable and unjust, and
their research also suggests that the number of Londoners suffering from both poor
physical and mental health is likely to increase as a result of the poor economy and
increased unemployment. Inequalities are also likely to widen. Those Londoners with
low socioeconomic status are more likely to lose their jobs and less likely to have the
material or psychosocial resources to deal effectively with that or other negative
financial effects. This means that the poorest and most vulnerable will be susceptible
to worsening physical and mental health issues.
3.1.6 Education policy and reform
The coalition government has pledged to prioritise children and young people and to
prevent a rise in child poverty. Budgets for schools have been ring fenced, yet cuts
across local authorities and other organisations will negatively affect services
available for children and young people. Key government policies that will specifically
affect education include:
Abolition of the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) of £30 per week for
those aged 16-18 continuing in education or training before its replacement
scheme has been developed. A report by the House of Commons Education
Committee found nearly a third (29%) of young people who were NEET would
have continued education after Year 11 if they have received more money to
cover the cost of transport 58. This is likely to be an even greater issue in
London where travel costs are higher than in other regions
Introducing more academies and „free schools‟ independent of local authority
control and with much greater freedoms. There are concerns that these
freedoms will not result in improved standards, but instead in a highly variable
standard with children from poorer areas less likely to benefit59
Changes to the university funding system, whereby university tuition fees were
effectively trebled, increasing the amount most students would have to take out
in loans to afford a university education. There were some changes to the
student loan system, including a raised earning limit at which loan repayments
would have to be made, but the benefits of this reform appear outweighed by
concerns about tuition fee increases
Overall, this government‟s education reforms are reported to have reduced young
people‟ aspiration to continue into higher and further education. Nationally, numbers
of both 16-18 year olds in further education60, and university applications61 have
reduced since introduction of the reforms. Young people in London wishing to stay at
home to study for a qualification will be particularly disadvantaged by the cuts to
17
EMA and increases in tuition fees because of the higher general costs of living in the
capital. This is particularly concerning with the high proportion of young people who
are NEET in deprived neighbourhoods in the capital.
3.1.7 Policing, crime and victim support
There is evidence that violent crime might increase during a recession62. This is
supported by a report that suggests that the strain on families caused by a recession
might increase family violence and child neglect63. Reports of increased domestic
violence and relationship breakdown have already been published64. This may
exacerbate the already disproportionately high rate of violent crime in London, which
already comprises a fifth of all crimes against the person in England and Wales65,
including almost half of all teenage murders in England66. London also has higher
incidences of overall crime than other regions67.
Despite this danger of rising crime, the Government‟s Police Reform and Social
Responsibility Act 201168 introduced major reforms to the organisation of police
services in England and Wales. Outside London, elected Police and Crime
Commissioners will hold the local police service to account. In London, the Mayor of
London may appoint a Deputy to carry out this role. A new Mayor‟s Office for
Policing and Crime69 has been established, which is now responsible for setting the
strategic priorities for the Metropolitan Police Service and commissioning London‟s
crime and community safety services. The Mayor of London is now directly
accountable for the performance of the police service in the capital.
It is unclear how the formation of a new structure to lead policing at a time when
crime is projected to increase will affect London. A recent report from the Victims'
Services Advocates project70 highlighted findings that satisfaction with the
Metropolitan Police Service is extremely low, with only 50% of London victims rating
the police service as good or excellent. Findings from the report also draw attention
to major inconsistencies in services for crime victims across London‟s 32 boroughs.
3.2.1 Big Society
The Big Society was launched as a mjor policy initiative underpinning the
government‟s agenda for change. It aimed to achieve:
Increased community involvement in influencing and delivering local services
An increase in the role of the VCS in public service delivery
An increase in social action, with people contributing more time and money to
improve society
As other major policy reforms have grabbed the headlines, government references to
the „Big Society‟ have lessened and some commentators see it as an „ex-policy‟71.
The government‟s downgrading of the Office for Civil Society72 and the
Parliamentary Public Administration Select Committee report on the „Big Society‟,
18
which stated that the government seemed to have „no coherent plan‟ to deliver on its
rhetoric73 provide some evidence that the government is losing interest in the idea.
Civil Exchange‟s recent audit74 of „Big Society‟ achievements found that instead of
being strengthened in the first two years of the Big Society, the VCS is facing an
estimated cut in statutory funding of £3.3 billion between 2010 -16, which is unlikely
to be replaced by funding from other sources. Although the UK has one of the most
diverse public service delivery markets in the world, the private sector has benefited
much more than the VCS, because of what the report claims is „an implicit bias in
government tendering practices toward the private sector‟.
Most interestingly for London, the Audit finds a „Big Society gap‟ in performance
against key indicators of „Big Society‟ success between younger and older people,
affluent and disadvantaged communities, rural and urban areas and White and
Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) communities. In the light of the riots in
2011, it is particularly interesting that younger people are far less likely than older
people to believe that people in their neighbourhood pull together to improve it, or
that many people locally can be trusted. There is a similar gap in views on these
points between disadvantaged and affluent areas; rural and urban areas and White
and BAME communities. In London, which has a disproportionately young population
and a greater proportion of people from BAME communities living in deprived, urban
areas this „Big Society‟ gap would, therefore, be expected to be particularly large and
may contribute to more feeling social isolation and reduced social cohesion.
3.2.2 Localism
The Localism Act75 received Royal Assent in November 2011 and aims to devolve
more powers from central government to local authorities and communities. It
contains a specific section on London, which also devolves more central government
powers to the Mayor of London and the Greater London Authority.
At a local level, the Bill contains the following additional new rights:
Community right to challenge (which came into place in June 2012) allows a
VCS group to challenge to take over delivery if a frontline service is felt to be
poor
Community right to bid (expected to come into force later this summer) allows
VCS organisations to bid to buy assets from local authorities, if they have a
community value
Community right to build (which came into force in May 2012) will allow a
development to take place with no further requirement for complicated planning
permission processes, if at least 50% of local people support it in a referendum
In London, the Bill:
Transfers powers from the Homes and Communities Agency to the Greater
London Authority in London, giving the Mayor greater powers to build houses
Puts the abolition of the London Development Agency into legislation
Allows the Mayor to designate areas in London as Mayoral Development Areas
and to establish Mayoral Development Corporations to lead this regeneration
19
Reduces the Mayor's powers over planning to only the largest planning
applications; smaller applications will be decided by local authorities
Allows the London Assembly to reject Mayoral strategies if two-thirds vote
against them
Repeals the duty for four-yearly reports on the state of the environment in
London and consolidates the six Mayoral Strategies relating to the environment
into one Environmental Strategy
While gaining additional powers over housing, economic development and
regeneration, the Mayor has lost powers on planning to local authorities and in a
contradictory policy decision, has relinquished powers over skills and business
support in the capital to central government. Some of the functions of the former
statutory London Skills and Employment Board are now replaced by the London
Enterprise Panel76, which has established an Employment and Skills sub-group, but
the latter is not a legal body and has no overall powers or funding to support a coordinated approach to employment and skills issues across sectors in London.
Commentators have raised concerns that the localism agenda could fail to address
the needs of minority groups and increase inequality77 (a particular issue in a city as
diverse as London) and that the new community rights are not accompanied by
enough resources to decentralise power from local authorities to local
communities78.
3.2.3 Open Public Services and the Work Programme
The Open Public Services White Paper79 was published in July 2011 and aimed to
outline the government‟s plans for major public service reform. It made a
commitment to open up more public service delivery to the independent sector,
including the VCS, and to develop more choice and diversity of provision. Despite a
strong policy emphasis on the personalisation and decentralisation of service
delivery within the Paper, its most cited demonstration of success is the
commissioning of the Work Programme, a new national welfare-to-work scheme,
which was tendered as large sub-regional contracts mainly won by private sector
prime contractors. Even sub-contracting of the VCS resulted in only 20% of delivery
though the sector, rather than the Government‟s target of at least 30%.
An update document80 describing progress on the Open Public Services White
Paper‟s aspirations was published in June 2012. Despite asking how to ensure a
level playing field for different types of providers in different sectors in the original
White Paper, a year later there still appears to be no plan to address the needs of
the VCS around this issue. Indeed, the update paper specifically states that the
Government will „look to extend the Work Programme commissioning approach to
other service areas‟.
LVSC‟s research81 has found that the large minimum contracts, „payment by results‟
models, problems associated with TUPE of other organisations‟ staff and transfer of
risk to the provider were all significant barriers to VCS organisations becoming
involved in the Work Programme‟s commissioning approach. In the delivery of the
Work Programme in London, this has resulted in many specialist VCS providers
signing „tier 2‟ or „spot contract‟ agreements with prime contractors and then
20
receiving no referrals, and hence no funding. This suggests that the most
disadvantaged and/or vulnerable unemployed Londoners are not receiving the
support they need to gain long-term employment through the Work Programme and
that their choice of provider has been limited through the use of this commissioning
model.
In total, in 2011-12, London Boroughs and the Greater London Authority (GLA) lost
at least £355 million as a result of funding cuts from the Department of Communities
and Local Government. That is 30% of the national cut to local and regional
government. The capital‟s local authorities lost £169.3 million; the Greater London
Authority (GLA) lost £185.6 million.
Greater London
Authority (£m)
London boroughs
and City of
London (£m)
Metropolitan Police Authority
Transport for London
London Development Agency
Area Based Grant
Housing Planning and Delivery
£37.6
£108.0
£40.0
-
£74.3
£17.9
Local Area Agreement Reward
Grant
-
£64.8
Local Authority Business Growth
Incentive grants
-
£12.4
£185.6
£169.3
Total
Grand total
£354.9
Table 1: Summary of 2011-12 cuts to London from the Department of Communities
& Local Government through the Greater London Authority (GLA) and London
boroughs and the City of London
21
Changes in formula grant from 2010-13
All London
boroughs + City of
London (average)
Greater London
Authority
2010-11
Adjusted
(£m)
2011-12
Adjusted
(£m)
%
change
2012-13
Adjusted
(£m)
%
change
4.76
4.20
-11.7
3.95
-5.8
2.40
2.28
-4.9
2.17
-4.9
Table 2 Cuts in formula grant to the GLA and London boroughs & the City of London
between 2010 - 2013
Across London local authorities and the City of London, the formula grant provided
by central government through the Department of Communities and Local
Government decreased on average by 11.7% between 2010-11 and 2011-12 and by
5.8% between 2011-12 and 2012-13 - an overall decrease of 17.9% over two years.
The Greater London Authority‟s formula grant decreased by 4.9% in both years - an
overall decrease of 9.6% over two years.
Changes in spending power 2011-13
By including additional funding from the NHS for adult social care, council tax freeze
grants and transition grants, the changes in spending power of local authorities and
the Greater London Authority are more accurately reflected. These figures showed
an average reduction in spending power across London local authorities and the City
of London of 8.9% over two years and of 6.8% for the Greater London Authority over
two years. This reduction is greater in London than the national average 82.
% change % change
2010-11 to 2011-12 to
2011-12
2012-13
% change
2010-11 to
2012-13
All London boroughs + City of London
(average)
-5.3
-3.9
-8.9
Greater London Authority
-2.9
-4.10
-6.8
Table 3 Cuts in spending power of the GLA and London boroughs and the city of
London between 2010 and 2013
3.3.1 The role of the Mayor of London and Greater London Authority (GLA) in
London‟s economic development
Although, as a result of the Localism Act 2011, the Mayor of London has gained
more powers over housing, economic development and regeneration issues, central
22
Government funding for economic development projects in London has been
reduced by more than 85% for 2012 -13 compared to 2009 -10 as part of the
planned public sector spending cuts. The Mayor is, therefore, looking for other
sources of funding for regeneration work in London until 2014-15. Business rates
from London‟s first Enterprise Zone in Newham will provide a source of funding for
the new London Enterprise Panel from 2013, and the GLA plans to borrow £110
million over four years for regeneration projects. However, even with these additions,
there will probably be less than 20% of the funding the London Development Agency
received at its peak (£416 million in 2006-7)83.
3.3.2 Cuts to the London Borough Grants Scheme
The London Boroughs Grants Scheme (LBGS) is a statutory scheme set up
by the Local Government Act 1985. It is used to fund pan-London and cross-borough
VCS projects that fill London-wide gaps in meeting need that would not otherwise be
funded locally for reasons of efficiency, cost effectiveness and economies of scale.
All London‟s local authorities contribute to the Scheme and agree its annual budget,
which is administered by London Councils.
Following a June 2010 decision to reduce London boroughs‟ contributions to the
London Borough Grants Scheme, as a result of cuts to their own local authority
funding, it was agreed that funding for the Scheme would be reduced from over £26
million in 2010 to just under £21 million in 2011-12, followed by further cuts to
achieve funding of only £8 million by 2013 - 14. This amounts to a total funding
reduction of around 70%, far higher than the cuts experienced by even the worst hit
local authorities in London.
The decision was taken before the Government produced its new Best Value
guidance recommending that VCS organisations should not face disproportionate
cuts from local authorities84. Yet many local authorities said that they would invest
the funds saved from the LBGS in VCS organisations delivering services specifically
within their local borough, suggesting that this funding would not be lost to the
sector.
However, research in LVSC‟s last Big Squeeze report suggested that in 2011-12,
only 55% of the money previously contributed to the LBGS was spent on the VCS,
and this contribution is likely to be reduced further in 2012-13 as no local authorities
have signed commitments to ring-fence those reclaimed funds for their local VCS.
As a result, in August 2011, London Councils cut 215 of the services previously
commissioned through the Scheme, affecting a total of 173 VCS organisations. This
amounted to a loss of £12,165,809 in annual income to the sector, with average
organisational losses of £70,323 per annum.
In terms of communities affected by these cuts, it was services for children and
young people followed by those for BAME communities that suffered the greatest
losses.
23
% of
Specialist services
organisations
for:
cut by number
Specialist
services for:
Children and Young
People
BAME
Women
Disabled people
People of a
particular religion or
belief
Older People
LGBT
Carers
Children and
Young People
BAME
Women
Disabled people
People of a
particular religion/
belief
Older People
LGBT
Carers
36
16
5
5
4
2
2
2
% of London
Councils funds cut
37
15
4
4
3
3
1
1
Table 4 Cuts in the LBGS in 2011-12 broken down by the communities for which
services were provided
In terms of the specific services affected, the greatest effects were seen on arts and
culture, VCS infrastructure and advice/legal/advocacy services.
Service area
Arts and Culture
Advice/Legal/Advocacy
Infrastructure
Health & Social Care
Homelessness
Volunteering
Crime prevention
Domestic/sexual
violence
Counselling
Environment
Employment and Skills
Transport
% of
organisations
cut by number
30
17
16
13
10
9
9
6
5
3
2
1
Service area
Infrastructure
Arts and Culture
Advice/Legal/Advocacy
Health & Social Care
Volunteering
Homelessness
Crime prevention
Domestic/sexual
violence
Environment
Counselling
Employment and Skills
Transport
% of London
Councils
funds cut
25
24
19
13
12
8
7
7
5
4
4
1
Table 5 Cuts in the LBGS in 2011-1 broken down by the specific service provided
24
In September 2011, London Councils also agreed a 50% reduction in their
contribution to the pan-London European Social Fund (ESF) programme, which the
organisation officially co-finances to ensure value for money for London. London
councillors decided that the boroughs‟ total contribution to the Fund would be
reduced from £2 million to £1 million, which is matched by the ESF, reducing the
total resource from £4 million to £2 million. London Council leaders also agreed to
scrap the technical assistance programme to support groups funded under the ESF
theme.
London Councils‟ ESF programme focuses on improving the employability and skills
of unemployed and economically inactive people. Thus, at a time when
unemployment in London is at its highest levels since the 1990s, and early evidence
suggests that Work Programme support is not meeting the needs of the most
excluded unemployed Londoners, funding for a programme that provides such
specialist employment support has been reduced by half.
A further 21 London Councils commissions provided by 20 different VCS
organisations are now scheduled to end in September 2012 as they do not fit the
principles and priorities agreed for the future 2013 – 15 Scheme. Overall, these final
commissions are worth £1.83 milllion annually and represent an average annual cut
to each organisation‟s funding of £91,701. Particularly affected in this second round
of cuts are services providing specialist legal advice and health and care services.
3.3.3 Cuts to local authority budgets in London
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown how local government spending, and
planned cuts to this have varied across England over recent years. Excluding
education, local government expenditure per person in London in 2009 - 10 (£1,868)
was much higher than in the rest of the country, although the costs of transport and
police in the capital explain a large part of the difference. However, high-spending
regions, such as London, are facing much larger local government funding cuts.
Councils in the top quarter of spenders in 2009−10 faced average cuts of 17%,
versus 6% among those in the bottom quarter. The planned spending cuts are,
therefore, larger in high-spending local authorities, which are mainly in the urban and
poorer parts of England, than in more affluent rural and suburban areas. London has
been especially badly hit with overall cuts in local government spending of 11% (or
£221 per person), against a national average of 9% (£112 per person)85.
This pattern in spending cuts was also seen within London, where the proportion of
spending power reduction was much greater for the more deprived London boroughs
such as Hackney (total reduction in spending power over two years is 15%)
compared with more affluent boroughs, such as Richmond (total reduction in
spending power over two years is 2%). Table 6 shows figures for each authority.
25
3.4.1 Charity Commission registrations and removals in London
Using the Charity Commission website, it is possible to search for the number of
charities being registered and removed in each financial year throughout London.
Although, many VCS organisations are not registered as charities, this provides an
overview of what has happened to the charity sector in London since the recession
began in September 2008. Figure 1 provides an illustration of total charity
registrations, removals and net within-year gains in charities registered for the years
2005-06 to 2011-12.
The UK entered recession in September 2008 and didn‟t emerge into growth until
December 2009. It can be seen that over this period, mainly symbolised by the 200910 financial year, new charity registrations tailed off, the number of charities removed
in a year peaked (almost doubling within the space of one year) and the net annual
gain in London charity numbers was the lowest over the seven year period shown.
In 2011-12, new charity registrations are increasing and removals are decreasing.
However, with the UK entering a second double dip recession it will be interesting to
see if charity registrations and removals in London in 2012-13 reflect this in the same
way as they did in 2009 -10.
London borough
Adjusted change in
spending power 2010-11
to 2011-12
Adjusted change in
spending power 2011-1 to
2012-13
Barking and Dagenham
-5.94%
-3.4%
Barnet
-2.60%
-2.5%
Bexley
-2.79%
-2.8%
Brent
-5.85%
-4.0%
Bromley
-2.46%
-2.7%
Camden
-6.54%
-4.4%
City of London
-6.49%
-6.5%
Croydon
-5.02%
-2.9%
Ealing
-4.87%
-3.8%
Enfield
-2.77%
-2.5%
Greenwich
-7.71%
-4.4%
Hackney
-8.80%
-6.8%
Hammersmith and Fulham
-6.56%
-4.4%
Haringey
-7.90%
-4.0%
Harrow
-1.89%
-2.4%
Havering
-1.71%
-2.2%
26
Hillingdon
-3.11%
-3.1%
Hounslow
-4.69%
-3.7%
Islington
-8.78%
-4.3%
Kensington and Chelsea
-5.26%
-4.3%
Kingston upon Thames
-2.57%
-2.6%
Lambeth
-7.70%
-4.5%
Lewisham
-6.49%
-4.3%
Merton
-3.84%
-3.4%
Newham
-8.80%
-6.6%
Redbridge
-2.59%
-2.8%
Richmond upon Thames
-0.61%
-1.6%
Southwark
-8.44%
-4.6%
Sutton
-2.80%
-2.6%
Tower Hamlets
-8.80%
-6.2%
Waltham Forest
-5.21%
-3.7%
Wandsworth
-6.45%
-4.6%
Westminster
-7.22%
-5.0%
Table 6 Cuts to London local authority‟s spending power in 2011-12 and 2012-13
LVSC keeps an updated, but not comprehensive, list of London VCS organisations
forced to close as a result of funding cuts in our regular funding cuts reports86. These
include many smaller community organisations, who have not registered as charities.
In the last update (March 2012) an additional 31 VCS organisations (not mentioned
as removals on the Charity Commission website) were reported to have closed.
27
300
250
UK
recession
Number in London
200
New registration
Removed charities
Net gain in year
150
100
50
0
2011-12
2010-11
2009-10
2008-9
2007-8
2006-7
2005-6
Financial Year
Figure 1 Within-year London charity registrations, removals and net gains between 2005-6
and 2011-12. The UK recession began in September 2008 and only ended at the end of
2009
3.4.2 Local authority cuts to London‟s voluntary and community sector
The False Economy website87 obtained information on local authority cuts to
voluntary and community sector using Freedom of Information requests to councils
nationally for the year 2010-11. Although this is not new data, we did not have
sufficient time to include an analysis of the data provided by the 18 London local
authorities that responded in our 2011 report. A summary of the amount of funding
and average percentage cut from local authority funds for groups working within
each sub-sector of the VCS is shown in Table 7.
This demonstrates that across the 18 London boroughs that responded, children and
young people‟s VCS services saw the largest absolute cut in funding terms, losing
over £17 million from these 18 London local authorities alone. However, the average
per cent of local authority funding cuts was greatest for VCS organisations working
on economic issues (which include employment and skills services) and education.
Category
Children and young people
Economic
Volunteering
Homelessness and
housing
Total cut (£)
17,045,358
9,435,159
7,546,416
Average % cut
64
84
48
7,495,069
44
28
Disability
Community
Arts
Adult care
Elderly
Health
Information, advice and
counselling
Citizens Advice Bureaux
Domestic violence and
sexual abuse
Crime
Amenities
Education
Environment
Sports
Other
Equality
Transport
Grand Total
7,393,163
6,078,366
4,697,098
3,797,896
3,213,038
2,869,584
46
70
53
41
60
54
2,839,513
55
2,523,105
23
2,435,061
43
1,913,037
1,822,367
1,594,324
1,394,204
992,933
912,833
389,010
205,331
86,605,464
63
33
83
72
68
69
51
57
57
Table 7 Cuts to local authority spending on the VCS in 2010-11 according to subsector (as reported by the 18 London boroughs providing data to False Economy‟s
Freedom of Information requests.
29
4.1.1 Has the economic and/or policy climate affected the communities you
work with over the last year (April 2011- March 2012)? (n=251)
Response Response
Percent
Total
1 Yes
88.5%
222
2 No
4.8%
12
3 Don‟t know
6.8%
17
89% of organisations said that the economic and /or policy climate has affected the
communities with which they work over the last year.
Over the years
2009
Yes
95%
2010
Yes
97%
2011
Yes
97%
2012
Yes
89%
There was a slight fall in the number saying their communities were affected this
year compared with previous years, perhaps because many economic and policy
changes were announced and implemented when the survey took place in 2011.
Comparing local and wider area organisations
There was no significant difference between answers for local (neighbourhood,
borough) and wider area (cross-borough, London and national) VCS organisations.
4.1.2 If yes, in what way have your users been affected? (n = 219)
All the listed options provided in the survey were experienced as affecting the
communities the VCS worked with in London. The most common effect was loss of
services that met users‟ needs (83%), followed by higher demand for advice services
(59%) and increased worklessness (56%). 48% reported worsening health issues
amongst their users.
Other issues, not specifically mentioned as tick box answers were:
Cuts to social care meaning people were not receiving care 3
The most vulnerable affected most negatively
3
Increased crime
1
Opportunities for communities through Olympics
1
1.4%
1.4%
0.5%
0.5%
30
Response Response
Percent
Total
1
Increased
worklessness
56.2%
123
Higher demand for
advice on issues such
2 as housing,
employment or
benefits
59.4%
130
More cannot afford
3 their housing costs or
risk homelessness
42.0%
92
Worsening health
4 issues (including
mental health issues)
47.9%
105
More cannot afford
5 essentials such as
food and fuel
40.1%
88
More are not taking up
6 education
opportunities
25.1%
55
7
Loss of services that
meet their needs
82.6%
181
8
Fewer opportunities to
volunteer
18.3%
40
9
More opportunities to
volunteer
11.0%
24
10 Other, please specify:
3.7%
8
Comparing local and wider area organisations
The issues affecting users did not differ significantly between local and wider area
VCS organisation respondents. A slightly higher proportion of local organisations‟
reported that their users were affected by a greater need for advice, housing issues
and support around worsening health.
31
4.1.3 How do you think the economic and/or policy climate will affect the
communities you work with over the next year (April 2012- March 2013)? (n =
251)
Response Response
Percent
Total
1 Get worse
87.7%
220
2 Stay the same
6.4%
16
3 Improve
1.6%
4
4 Don‟t Know
4.4%
11
88% thought that things would get worse for the communities they work with over the
next year as a result of the economic or policy climate. This compares with only 69%
who thought their communities would suffer more in the next year in the 2011
survey. Only 2% thought that things would improve for the communities with which
they work over the next year.
Comparing local and wider area organisations
There was no significant difference between the responses of local and wider area
organisations to this question.
4.1.4 We would be grateful if you could provide more details explaining your
answer (n = 154)
Qualitative answers to this question were broken down into the following issues (see
table below), which organisations identified as explaining why things would get
worse for the communities they worked with over the next year.
Issue
Cuts to services means
users needs are not being
met
Unemployment will
continue to rise
More cuts to benefits
Specific sub-issue
%
No.
48%
74
Cuts to charities
36%
56
Cuts to local authority services
33%
18
Cuts to social care services
Local services being taken over by
nationals with less knowledge
Fewer preventative services
5%
7
3%
4
2%
3
Less support for carers
1%
2
21%
33
3%
5
1%
1
21%
33
10%
15
Particular problems with Work
Programme
Worsening employment conditions
Specifically housing
32
Specifically disability
Stress and major reform
of the NHS will reduce
health and well-being
The economy will worsen
and more cuts will be
introduced
Inequality will increase
Specifically ill effects on mental
health
More hate crime and less cohesion
More poverty
Criminal Justice System
and Legal Aid reform will
lead to more crime and
less effective rehabilitation
Specifically more debt
Specifically more domestic violence
and family breakdown
Specifically effect of reduced access
to Legal Aid
3%
5
21%
33
14%
22
19%
29
15%
23
3%
4
14%
22
2%
3
1%
2
5%
7
2%
3
4.1.5 What government policies have had, or are likely to have, a particularly
negative impact on the communities you work with?
Response Response
Percent
Total
Re-organisation and
1 efficiency savings in
the NHS
47.2%
116
2
Cuts to local authority
budgets
84.6%
208
3
Changes to
educational policies
26.8%
66
4 Welfare reform
63.4%
156
5 Housing policy
47.6%
117
6 Cuts to legal aid
44.3%
109
Changes to policing
and crime policy
20.7%
51
More commissioning
of public services from
8
the independent
sector
37.8%
93
39.4%
97
10 Big Society agenda
22.4%
55
11 Localism agenda
19.5%
48
7
9
Introduction of the
Work Programme
33
Response Response
Percent
Total
12 None
1.6%
4
13 Other, please specify:
5.7%
14
The policy felt to have the most negative impact on communities was cuts to local
authority spending (85%) followed by welfare reform (63%). Almost all policies
mentioned were felt to have a negative impact by some respondents. Only 2%
thought that no Government policies had a negative impact on the people they
worked with.
“Nationally the evidence is that the recession is getting worse. Local
Authorities are being squeezed more and more each year. Interest rates seem
certain to stay low so Trusts etc will continue to suffer reduced income.”
“The biggest impact service users will feel directly is likely to be changes to
the benefits system; many have reported not understanding what changes are
happening and fear they will lose vital support.”
Even policies which the Government suggested would support the VCS were
thought by some respondents to have had negative impacts on the communities with
which they worked, including policy to encourage more commissioning from the
independent sector (38%), Big Society (22%) and Localism (20%).
For those who ticked „other‟:
(3%) had an overall concern about the negative impacts of the general coalition
government policy programme and / or direction
4 (2%) were concerned about the lack of emphasis on, or weakening of,
equality policy and legislation
2 (1%) were concerned about the negative impacts of immigration policy
1 (1%) was concerned about the negative impact of pension policy
Comparing small and large organisations
There was little difference between the responses of small and large organisations to
this question. Smaller organisations were slightly more likely to see the negative
impacts of NHS reform and housing policy. Larger organisations were more likely to
see the negative impacts of more localism and changes to policing and crime policy.
34
4.1.6 What government policies have had, or are likely to have, a particularly
positive impact on the communities you work with? (n = 209)
Response Response
Percent
Total
Re-organisation and
1 efficiency savings in the
NHS
7.1%
15
2
Cuts to local authority
budgets
4.3%
9
3
Changes to educational
policies
6.7%
14
4 Welfare reform
4.8%
10
5 Housing policy
3.4%
7
6 Cuts to legal aid
1.9%
4
Changes to policing and
crime policy
6.7%
14
More commissioning of
8 public services from the
independent sector
22.0%
46
Introduction of the Work
Programme
6.2%
13
10 Big Society agenda
23.4%
49
11 Localism agenda
24.9%
52
12 None
44.5%
93
13 Other, please specify:
3.4%
7
7
9
35
With the dire economic forecast in mind, Brent Mind developed Nucleus, a project
driving forward an agenda of self help and recovery, whatever the future held, for
people with mental health concerns. They successfully secured funding and the
project began in late 2011.
“When I first met Jay from Brent Mind‟s Nucleus project I was desperate,” said
Maria. “I wanted a way out of the mess I was in. I was homeless, had been
diagnosed with depression, was very tearful and wanted to move on.”
Nucleus helps people who have the hope and desire to improve their quality of
life. People are motivated to make informed choices about services and
activities, manage their budgets and plan for the future. A Brokerage Worker
works individually with people for a set time period, drawing up action plans and
providing key contacts.
“As soon as I met Jay he listened to me,” reflected Maria. “That meant so much.
He told me I was not alone, we were in this together. For the first time, in a long
time, I had somebody to talk to, somebody who listened and didn‟t rush me.
“I was living in a hostel and, whilst the place was nice, the people varied. I didn‟t
like having to share facilities – toilet, kitchen. It was unhygienic.”
Maria was signposted to a resettlement worker and was offered the support she
needed. “It was thanks to Jay and Nucleus that I now have my studio flat where I
have my own kitchen and bathroom.
“I am from Mexico and love to swim but when I came to England I missed it so
much. Jay signed me up for the local centre and now I swim for free three or four
times a week. This has helped me so much.”
Maria has also undertaken various training programmes and workshops geared
towards gaining paid employment.
“I have always said „I am a survivor‟, and it is true, but without Nucleus I don‟t
know where I would be today. I know I would have deteriorated and I would be in
a far worse situation.
“I am so thankful to Jay and appreciate his help so much. I feel so much better
now that I have even started to give up smoking.”
*Names have been changed.
36
45% of respondents could not name a Government policy that had had a positive
impact on those they worked with. Only 25%, 23% and 22% respectively named the
localism agenda, Big Society or more commissioning of public services from the
independent sector as having a positive impact on their communities and these were
matched by similar numbers who thought these had a negative impact, as per the
previous question.
“Big Society seems to have disappeared - anyway, it didn't come with funding
attached for existing volunteering services.”
“Much of our work over the past two years has focussed on the potential of
the localism agenda to offer communities greater power and control. However,
the combination of all these policy changes is likely to create a 'perfect storm'
which will ultimately entrench greater disadvantage within certain
communities. As a consequence the people who could benefit most from
localism will not be able to access the opportunities offered.”
Of those who answered „other‟:
Two (1%) provided more provisos as to how policy should be implemented to
ensure positive impacts
Two (1%) felt that some recent Violence Against Women and Girls policies had
been positive
Two (1%) felt that there was a positive commitment to reducing climate change;
for example, there was a positive impact to the communities with the ruling out
of development of a third runway at Heathrow
One (0.5%) felt the implementation of the Equality Act 2010 could bring positive
impacts but expressed reservations that it may subsequently be „watered down‟
Comparing local and wider area organisations
Local organisations were more likely to think there was a positive impact of localism
and Big Society on their communities. Wider area organisations were more likely to
say that there were no Government policies that had a positive impact on the
communities they worked with.
37
4.2.1 Has demand for your services increased as a direct result of the
economic or policy climate during 2011 – 2012? (n = 252)
Response Response
Percent
Total
1 Yes
66.3%
167
2 No
8.7%
22
3 Remained the Same
15.9%
40
4 Don't Know
9.1%
23
66% of respondents said that demand for their services had increased during 201112
Over the years
2009
Yes
71%
2010
Yes
68%
2011
Yes
81%
2012
Yes
66%
This is the lowest proportion of respondents that said demand for their services had
increased over the last year for the four years the Big Squeeze survey has been
conducted. However, it still indicates a year-on-year increase in demand for VCS
services. In a previous question (4.1.2), respondents stated that a loss of services
that met their users‟ needs was the greatest negative impact in 2011-12. The lower
percentage saying demand has increased over the year compared with last year
may reflect the fact that demand has increased every year over the last three years,
so much so that it is now beginning to reach a plateau.
“Waiting lists for outreach services have grown - five weeks is not uncommon
now. We had previously had similar outreach with only a one or two week
wait”
Comparing local and wider area organisations
There was no significant difference between the proportion of respondents reporting
an increase in demand for their services in 2011-12 between local (67%) and wider
area (66%) VCS organisations.
38
4.2.2. If yes, how much has demand in services increased by? (n = 165)
Response Response
Percent
Total
1 0-20%
32.7%
54
2 21-40%
37.6%
62
3 41-60%
10.3%
17
4 61-80%
4.9%
8
5 81-100%
1.8%
3
3.0%
5
9.7%
16
6
Demand has more
than doubled
7 Don‟t know
The median increase in demand, for those respondents that had experienced an
increase, was 21-40%.
4.2.3 If demand has increased, please tick which kinds of services this has
affected (n = 163)
Service
Advice
Volunteering
Employment & Skills
VCS Support
Children & young people (combined)
Physical and mental health (combined)
Young people
Specialist / equalities
Advocacy
Mental health
Children
Homeless
Older people
Offenders
Physical health
Drugs & Alcohol
Poverty
Domestic violence
Victim support
Environment
Number
80
63
62
58
49
44
41
39
38
37
26
26
26
25
20
20
17
17
13
6
%
48.5
38.2
37.5
35.2
30.0
27.0
24.8
23.6
23
22.4
15.8
15.8
15.8
15.2
12.1
12.1
10.3
10.3
7.9
3.6
39
The services most commonly reported to have seen an increase in demand in 201112 were advice (49% of respondents mentioned) and volunteering and employment
and skills services (both 38%), followed by VCS support services (also known as
infrastructure) (35%). If physical health and mental health are combined, the number
reporting an increase in demand is 44 (27%). If children and young people are
combined, the number reporting an increase in demand is 49 (30%).
Weighting responses for services respondents delivered
There was a much greater proportion of organisations offering support, volunteering
and employment and skills services responding to the survey than those, for
example, offering victim support or environmental services. The results were,
therefore, weighted to take into account the proportion of each service provided
among the survey respondents.
In this case, advice services remain the service most mentioned by respondents as
seeing an increase in demand over 2011-12, and employment and skills services
remain relatively highly positioned. However, services for the homeless (or those at
risk of homelessness), services that directly support individuals in addressing
poverty, improving health, and supporting children and young people and victims of
crime also feature strongly when accounting for the lesser number of survey
respondents who provided these services.
This suggests that more and more people are currently seeking advice to address
issues that are arising as a result of short-term unemployment, welfare reform and/or
increasing poverty, but as these issues become more long-term, there is also an
increase in demand for support to address longer-term impacts such as employment
and skills, health, and housing and/or homelessness services and to address
immediate poverty issues.
“As unemployment continues to rise and with major changes in the benefits
system and employment rights in the foreseeable future, the need for advice is
continuing to increase. This puts additional pressure on advice providers who
are struggling to sustain and maintain their current (or reduced level) of
service as a result of government policies.
4.2.4 Do you expect demand for your services to increase as a direct result of
economic or policy changes now and over the next year (April 2012 - March
2013)? (n = 252)
Response Response
Percent
Total
1 Yes
71.4%
180
2 No
7.5%
19
9.9%
25
11.1%
28
3
Expect demand to
remain the same
4 Don‟t know
40
71% thought demand for services would increase next year. This compares with the
86% of respondents in the 2011 survey who thought demand for services would
increase in the next year.
Comparing local and wider area organisations
Slightly more local (76%) organisations thought that demand for their services would
increase in 2012 -13 than wider area organisations (69%).
The Addiction Support and Care Agency provides a unique service, supporting a
wide range of people who need assurance that their details will not be recorded on
national systems, and are much less likely to access public health services as a
result, including highly paid professionals.
ASCA's independent status is therefore crucial: the organisation is noncommissioned and does not report to any external agencies, unless referred by a
third party and with the agreement of the client.
"Many of our clients hold down highly paid jobs and responsible jobs. While their
problem is not yet serious enough to require detox or rehab, they don't want to get to
that point. Others have already been there, and need counselling to explore the
underlying issues." says ASCA's Ranjit Dhillon.
"This is a time when more services are needed as communities are under more
stress," she adds. "There are more people coming forward with addictions, mental
health problems, stress and eating disorders. We are now opening early mornings
and late evenings to increase our accessibility by people in work and with caring
responsibilities. We have taken on more volunteers. Our capacity is fully stretched."
4.2.5 If yes, tick which kinds of services you expect to be affected (n=178)
Service
Advice
Employment and skills
Support
Combining physical and mental health
Combining children and young people
Volunteering
Young People
Equalities
Number
93
75
70
66
54
62
55
53
%
52.2%
42.1%
39.3%
37.1%
36.5%
34.8%
30.9%
29.8%
41
Mental Health
Advocacy
Older People
Homeless
Offenders
Children
Physical health
Drugs and Alcohol
Domestic violence
Poverty
Victims
Environment
52
48
42
38
35
34
33
29
28
24
14
10
29.2%
27.0%
23.6%
21.3%
19.7%
19.1%
18.5%
16.3%
15.7%
13.4%
7.9%
5.6%
Advice (52% of respondents) and employment and skills services (42% of
respondents) were predicted to see the highest increases in demand over 2012-13.
Weighting responses for services delivered by respondents
Again, when the proportion of survey respondents delivering particularly services is
weighted, the order is changed, although advice services remain the service that
most people expect to continue to see an increase in demand for in the future.
The weighted list suggests that respondents expect to see even more demand for
services to address the long-term social impacts of poverty and unemployment such
as homelessness, increased crime, reduced care for older people, increasing drug
and alcohol use and health problems.
Children and young people and employment and skills services are still also
expected to continue to see increasing demand in 2012 -13.
“Long term unemployment will rise - as opportunities to obtain unskilled work
continue to fall.”
“We support families with disabled children. Statutory support is shrinking
and many families will fall through the net and no longer qualify for support;
welfare reform and education policy in particular will mean these families are
squeezed out even more.”
From analysis of questions 4.2.3 and 4.2.5, there is a clear conclusion that there is a
disproportionately large increase in demand for advice services and this is expected
to continue in 2012-13.
4.2.6. Has your organisation been able to meet any increases in demand for its
services in the past year (April 2011 – March 2012)? (n = 252)
42
Response Response
Percent
Total
1 Yes
56.0%
141
2 No
33.7%
85
3 Don‟t know
10.3%
26
56% said they had been able to meet the increased demand for their services over
the year. This compares with 57% last year. 34% said that they could not meet the
increased demand.
Comparing local and wider area organisations
A slightly higher proportion of wider area organisations (57%) said that they had
been able to meet increases in demand than local organisations (54%) although this
was not a significant difference.
4.2.7 Are you confident that you will be able to meet any increases in demand
for your services in the coming year (April 2012- March 2013)? (n = 252)
Only 25% thought that they would be able to meet demand for services in the
coming year. 50% thought that they would not be able to do so.
Response Response
Percent
Total
1 Yes
24.6%
62
2 No
50.0%
126
3 Don‟t know
25.4%
64
Comparing local and wider area organisations
There was no difference between the proportion of local or wider area organisations
who were confident that they could meet increases in demand in the coming year.
Over the years – not able to meet demand
2009
80%
2010
75%
2011
77%
2012
50%
The numbers saying they will not be able to meet demand in the future have fallen
over four years. This suggests that more and more VCS organisations are beginning
to adapt to the year-on-year increases in demand for their services.
43
4.2.8 What are the main reasons why you cannot, or think you will not be able
to, meet the demand for your services?
Response Response
Percent
Total
1 Lack of funds
91.3%
63
2
Uncertainty about
funding
71.0%
49
3
Lack of space /
accommodation
21.7%
15
4 Lack of staff
44.9%
31
5 Lack of qualified staff
21.7%
15
6 Lack of volunteers
11.6%
8
7
Lack of qualified
volunteers
15.9%
11
8
Lack of staff
management support
13.0%
9
9
Lack of volunteer
management support
23.2%
16
Inability to access
10 staff or volunteer
training
7.3%
5
Overreliance on staff
working more than
11
standard working
hours
42.0%
29
Overreliance on
volunteers working
12
more than standard
working hours
15.9%
11
13 Other, please specify:
5.8%
4
The main reason given for failing to meet increased demands was a lack of
funds (91%), although uncertainty about funding (71%), lack of staff (45%) and overreliance on staff working more than standard hours (42%) were also common
responses. All the reasons provided in the survey were chosen by at least 7% of
respondents, suggesting that all are present difficulties to London‟s organisations
wishing to meet the needs of their service users.
Of the other reasons given:
Two respondents (3%) stated that they could not meet demand because their
organisation had closed
44
Two respondents (3%) said that they were lacking referrals as funding cuts in
other sectors meant signposting and referrals were being cut, forcing them to
engage in more outreach work to find the people they aim to support
Lack of funding was also the most common reason for not being able to meet
demand for services in 2010-11.
Interestingly from the point of view of volunteering services, 12% reported a lack of
volunteers, 16% a lack of qualified volunteers and 23% a lack of volunteer
management support as the reason that they thought they would not be able to meet
demand for services.
4.3.1 Is your organisation already changing the way it works to cope with any
changes? (n = 252)
Response Response
Percent
Total
1 Yes
90.1%
227
2 No
7.5%
19
3 Don‟t know
2.8%
7
90% of organisations had already changed the way they worked to cope with
changes.
Over the years
2009
78%
2010
93%
2011
94%
2012
90%
Each year the majority of organisations have continued to take action to adapt to
changes. This suggests the flexibility and innovation of the VCS in striving to ensure
that it can continue to meet its users‟ needs.
Comparing local and wider organisations
There was no significant difference in the proportion of local or wider area
organisations that had changed the way they worked.
45
4.3.2. If yes, what actions has your organisation taken?
Response Response
Percent
Total
1
Collaboration with other
VCS organisations
46.9%
106
2
Collaboration with private
sector organisations
23.0%
52
Sharing back office
functions (such as finance
3
or HR support) with other
organisations
16.8%
38
Outsourcing some of your
functions
9.7%
22
5 Making staff redundant
39.4%
89
6 Taking on more volunteers
52.2%
118
4
7
Taking on
apprentices/interns/students
31.4%
71
8
Increased use of ICT or
social networking
35.8%
81
Developing fundraising
9 capacity / diversifying
income streams
60.2%
136
10
Moving / sub-letting
premises
17.3%
39
11
Working with
commissioners
27.9%
63
12
Improving relationship with
funders
34.1%
77
38.9%
88
Developing new ways to
13 measure your
organisation‟s impacts
14
Redesigning services better
around user‟s needs
38.5%
87
15
Developing a new business
model
50.0%
113
16
Merger with another
organisation
10.6%
24
17
More informal partnership
work
48.2%
109
4.9%
11
18 Other, please specify:
The most common action to adapt to change was to develop fundraising capacity/
diversify income streams (60%) although taking on more volunteers (52%),
46
developing a new business model (50%), more collaboration (47%) and more
informal partnership working (48%) were also common responses. 11% of
respondents had merged with another organisation, or were looking to merge.
Of the other responses:
Four organisations (2%) were reducing paid staff hours or working more hours
unpaid
Three (1.5%) were making increased efficiency savings
Two (1%) were using more infrastructure support
One (0.5%) was recruiting more staff
One(0.5%) was taking on temporary rather than permanent staff
One (0.5%) had recruited a new Chair and Board to take the organisation
forward
Last year, 54% of 2011 survey respondents had made staff redundant compared
with 39% this year.
“[We are producing more] online resources, however, I have found that our
client group does not engage or have enough understanding to make the most
of them.”
“Re-structuring the organisation to cut costs and work more effectively.”
“Exploring new and different ways of working with and across the LGBT
sector.”
“Exiting contracts with delayed [Payment by Results] PBR elements and
contracting to work on only 'fair' PBR contracts or grants.”
47
When I talk to our residents at my YMCA and ask them what they really want, like
many others, they say they want their own home with their own front door
When I look at our council‟s housing waiting list it shows a significant increase in
single people applying for housing, limiting the chance for our residents being
offered a flat.
When I ask our housing staff what the biggest barrier is in preventing our residents
from moving on in their lives, the overwhelming feedback is that there isn‟t enough
suitable „move-on‟ accommodation. When I consider the changes in housing
benefit, it seems clear to me that shared accommodation is becoming one of the
only options for most of our residents – not an ideal solution.
When I read the Joseph Rowntree Foundation Housing Report on young people,
that states 1.5 million young people will, by 2020, be pushed into the private rented
sector, where quality and security can be questionable, I think there has to be a
better alternative.
I got inspired by this to find a solution. Y:Cube Housing was born.
Y:Cube Housing schemes consist of clusters of self-contained units that don‟t
require any capital grant and offer good quality, affordable accommodation for
single people. The schemes are well suited for location on a variety of sites, which
may not be suitable for a traditional development.
Y:Cube is fully funded by a large pension fund, so a housing provider need only
sign a lease (in the range of 10-20 years) to see the units craned in and installed
on the site. Their first residents can be moving in within four months from signing
the lease. At the end of the lease the units are simply disconnected and moved
elsewhere.
That is why, when I think about the future for our residents, I get excited. Over the
next few months we will be launching the first Y:Cube scheme in London. Y:Cube
isn‟t just good news for our residents, it can provide ideal accommodation for
workers and students.
Y:Cube Housing is an exciting development in single person housing - it might not
solve every housing issue that we‟re seeing, but it‟s an important start.
Key points:
Y:Cube is a new, bespoke housing solution with cubes made off-site and put
together in a variety of configurations.
Schemes can be up and running just four months after planning consent has
been secured.
Running costs for the tenants are kept low as schemes meet Code 3 for
Sustainable Homes and are designed to last 60 years..
The single room reference rates for under 35 year olds won‟t apply if the
accommodation is managed by a registered housing provider.
Andy Redfearn, Director of Development at YMCA London South West
48
Response Response
Percent
Total
1
Collaboration with other
VCS organisations
46.9%
106
2
Collaboration with private
sector organisations
23.0%
52
Sharing back office
functions (such as finance
3
or HR support) with other
organisations
16.8%
38
Outsourcing some of your
functions
9.7%
22
5 Making staff redundant
39.4%
89
6 Taking on more volunteers
52.2%
118
4
7
Taking on
apprentices/interns/students
31.4%
71
8
Increased use of ICT or
social networking
35.8%
81
Developing fundraising
9 capacity / diversifying
income streams
60.2%
136
10
Moving / sub-letting
premises
17.3%
39
11
Working with
commissioners
27.9%
63
12
Improving relationship with
funders
34.1%
77
38.9%
88
Developing new ways to
13 measure your
organisation‟s impacts
14
Redesigning services better
around user‟s needs
38.5%
87
15
Developing a new business
model
50.0%
113
16
Merger with another
organisation
10.6%
24
17
More informal partnership
work
48.2%
109
4.9%
11
18 Other, please specify:
.
49
Comparison with last year
Changes
Improve fundraising / diversifying income
Collaboration within sector
Sharing back office functions
Making staff redundant
Taking on more staff
Taking on more volunteers
Taking on more apprentices / interns
Making changes to premises / moving / subletting
Merger with another organisation
Collaboration with private sector
Outsourcing services
Better use of ICT / social networking
Developing new ways to measure impacts
Redesign services better around users
needs
Develop new business model
Improve work with funders / commissioners
Get more support from infrastructure
Increased efficiency savings
More staff working unpaid / reducing paid
hours
2010-11
15%
51%
16%
54%
8%
56%
3%
2011-12
60%
47%
17%
39%
0.4%
52%
31%
32%
17%
0%
0.8%
0%
9.%
1%
11%
23%
10%
36%
39%
16%
39%
8%
2%
3%
5%
50%
61%
1%
1%
8%
2%
The reports of actions taken were more organised and less pessimistic than those
expressed in last year‟s survey. In last year‟s responses many commented that they
had only just heard of large cuts to their funding and were struggling to cope with
increasing demands for services as their resources were dwindling. This year, fewer
respondents mentioned unsustainable short-term actions such as making staff
redundant, making efficiency savings and staff working unpaid or reducing their paid
hours. Instead, this year, there is more positive strategic planning such as
developing new business models, diversifying funding sources, redesigning services,
making greater use of ICT or social media and working in collaboration, including
with the private sector, funders and commissioners. This year, 10% of respondents
had merged and one other organisation was seriously considering merger, while in
answer to last year‟s survey, of the 3% of organisations that mentioned mergers,
none mentioned concrete plans to take this forward.
50
4.4.1 Overall has your organisation's funding increased or decreased from
2011-12 to 2012-13?
Response Response
Percent
Total
1 Increased
15.9%
40
2 Decreased
59.9%
151
3 No Change
19.1%
48
4 Don‟t Know
6.4%
16
60% of respondents had seen a reduction in their total funding in 2011-12, with only
16% reporting an increase.
Of the 15% who quantified their funding increase, the median increase was 1-20%.
Of the 59% of respondents with a decrease in their funding who quantified this, the
median loss was 21-40%. One organisation said it had lost 100% of its funding.
The averages of the median figures (a 10% increase for 15% of respondents and a
30% decrease for 59%) estimates a net reduction of 22% in London‟s VCS survey
respondents‟ total funding in this one year alone.
Comparing local and wider area organisations
Slightly more local organisations (66%) had seen a decrease in their funding than
wider area organisations (55%) over the year.
4.4.2 Compared to 2011-12, what do you expect to happen to your funding
from the public sector in the next year (April 2012- March 2013)? (n = 252)
Response Response
Percent
Total
1 Increase
4.0%
10
2 Decrease
53.2%
134
3 No change
18.7%
47
4 Don‟t Know
12.7%
32
5 Not applicable
11.9%
30
53% expected their public sector funding to decrease over the next year, with only
4% anticipating an increase.
Of the 4% expecting an increase in their public sector funding, the median was
expected to be 21-40%, although one organisation expected an increase of over
51
100%. Of those who expected a decrease, the median estimate was 21-40%. This is
the same median decrease as estimated last year.
Using the same calculation as above, this estimates a net decrease in public sector
funding to the survey respondents of 26% over 2012-13.
Comparing local and wider area organisations
There was no difference between local and wider area organisations in the
proportion who thought their public sector funding was likely to decrease (53%).
Over the years % expecting public sector funding to decrease
2009
N/A
2010
53%
2011
77%
2012
53%
This suggests most people expect last year‟s public spending cuts, which the
Government stated would be front-loaded, will prove to be more extensive than
those in 2012-13. Alternatively, last year‟s cuts may have reduced the number of
organisations funded by, or the percentage of their funding that comes from, the
public sector either through closure of the organisation itself or through diversification
of its funding income to more non-public sector sources. This could explain the
increase in the proportion of survey respondents answering „no change‟ or „not
applicable‟ from 13% in 2011 to 31% in 2012.
Nevertheless, despite the more optimistic assessment in 2012, over half of
respondents expected a decrease in their public sector funding in 2012-13. Following
the cuts last year, many organisations may struggle to cope with a further decrease
in their funds from the statutory sector.
4.4.3 Compared to 2011-12, what do you expect to happen to your funding
from trust funders in the next year (April 2012-March 2013)? (n = 252)
Response Response
Percent
Total
1 Increase
17.9%
45
2 Decrease
25.8%
65
3 No change
20.2%
51
4 Don‟t know
23.8%
60
5 Not applicable
12.3%
31
Only 26% expected their trust funding to decrease this year, while 18% expected an
increase.
Of the 16% who could quantify the expected increase in their trust funding in 201213, the median increase expected was 1-20%. Of 26% who expected and quantified
a decrease in their trust funding, the median estimate was a loss of 21-40%.
52
Using the same calculation as before, this estimates a net loss of 14% in trust
funding from the survey respondents from 2011-12 to 2012-13.
Comparing local and wider area organisations
Slightly more wider area organisations (20%) expected their funding from trust
funders to increase than did local organisations (14%) but for more local
organisations, this question was not applicable, suggesting a higher proportion
received no trust funding.
Over the years those expecting a decrease in trust funding
2009
Not asked
2010
38%
2011
28%
2012
26%
This has shown little change over the years, suggesting that people are more
confident of funding from charitable trusts than from the public sector and that their
confidence in trust funders seems to be increasing as public spending cuts bite.
4.4.4 Have you closed any services in 2011-12? (n = 252)
Response Response
Percent
Total
1 Yes
41.3%
104
2 No
56.0%
141
3 Don‟t Know
3.2%
8
41% had closed services in the last year – this compares with 51% in 2010-11 and
respondents‟ estimates at the time that 54% would be closing services in 2011-12.
This suggests that the sector could be adapting more successfully to the economic
climate and managing to keep more services open than expected. Alternatively,
many of the organisations expecting to close services in 2010 -11 may themselves
have closed completely and would then have been unlikely to complete this survey in
2012, thus potentially biasing results towards a more positive figure.
Although 41% is less severe than estimated last year, the reported closure of
services by 51% of organisations in 2010-11 and by 41% of organisations in 2011-12
demonstrates the large and negative impact that the current climate is having on
London‟s VCS and the people who rely on its services.
Comparing local and wider area organisations
More local organisations (49%) closed services than wider area organisations (38%).
4.4.5 If yes, which services were these? (n = 102)
98% of organisations that reported that they had closed services in 2011-12
completed this question.
53
The services most affected by closures were employment and skills services (29% of
those who had closed services cut those relating to employment and skills). These
were followed by support services for other VCS organisations (28%), specialist
services for particular communities (26%) and advice services (23%). If children and
young people‟s services are grouped together, they account for 25% of closures. If
physical and mental health are grouped together, they account for 17%.
Weighting responses for services delivered by respondents
If services closed are weighted for the proportion of these services provided by
survey respondents, specialist services for particular communities are the most
affected, followed by employment and skills, environmental services and support
services for other VCS organisations. If children and young people are grouped
together, they are the second most affected. If physical and mental health are
grouped together, they are below the top five most affected by closures.
This indicates that employment and skills, children and young people, specialist
services for particular communities and support services for VCS organisations were
disproportionately cut in 2011-12. This compares with last year when advice,
children and young people and health services were being disproportionately cut.
54
With only eleven weeks notice, Greenwich‟s Youthreach service was told that its
funding had been cut by 100 per cent. Not the 40 per cent that staff had hoped for,
but a 100 per cent cut. Closure.
“We‟ve been here 25 years, and in eleven weeks, it‟ll be gone,” said Maria Day,
Youthreach‟s Director.
Many of the volunteer counsellors had, as children, been helped by places like
Youthreach, and with this cut, felt that their chance to do the same for others was
being snatched away from them. Youthreach provided weekly counselling sessions
for young people between the ages of 11 and 25 who needed support of some kind
but often did not meet stringent NHS criteria for more formal care.
The typical Youthreach service user was not an offender or someone identified as
having high level clinical needs, as with other youth counselling services. It was in
many respects a typical VCS preventative service.
“We can‟t pass them onto anyone,” said Maria, speaking about the young people
who used Youthreach‟s service. “What remains available is really narrow.”
For users, the closure of Youthreach was a loss.
“I loved Youthreach,” says Alicia*. “I didn‟t have to worry about being judged. My
counsellor made me feel normal at a time when I wasn‟t normal in my head.”
Alicia started to lose weight after her five-year relationship broke up.
“I started throwing up,” she said. “I had panic attacks. I lost my fertility. I got down
to five-and-a-half stone, nearly five stone.”
After her mother convinced her to see a GP, her blood tests “came back on the
borderline of okay. I wasn‟t so bad that I was nearly dying, so they said they
wouldn‟t do anything about it unless I went to an institute myself.”
Several months after the Youthreach service closed, Alicia said, “Unfortunately, I
am again having issues with my health, weight, body image. I know of course it
won't ever fully disappear, but seeing as I'm not at my worst state, I am not eligible
for help from the doctors, and seeing as services such as Youthreach have been
taken away, there is no help.”
For Emily*, Youthreach “was an enormous relief. Obviously it wasn‟t going to make
all my issues suddenly vanish because they‟re to do with the way I think. But,
seriously, it felt really good.” Having conquered much of her anxiety, yet with
nowhere now to go for counselling for herself as Youthreach has closed, Emily
instead is going to try to help others. She is currently planning to start volunteering
with other young people suffering from anxiety and depression.
*names have been changed
Adapted from „One Cut‟, a blog post by Jon Ronson
55
Preventative versus curative services
Only 13% of services closed were purely „curative‟ (services that address a particular
problem once it has arisen) suggesting that „preventative‟ services (that work with
people to stop them developing a problem) are being disproportionately closed
(32%), as also suggested by our survey in 2010-11.
4.4.6 Are you expecting any of your services to close in the next year (April
2012 – March 2013)? (n = 252)
Response Response
Percent
Total
1 Yes
29.4%
74
2 No
42.5%
107
3 Don‟t Know
28.6%
72
Only 29% of organisations expected to close services this year, compared to 54%
who expected to close services in the previous year (2010-11).
Comparing local and wider area organisations
Slightly more local organisations (34%) expected to close services in 2012-13 than
wider area organisations (28%).
4.4.7 If yes, which services are these? (n=73)
The highest per cent of service closures expected in 2012-13 are to support services
for VCS organisations (29%), employment and skills services (26%) and specialist
services for particular communities (25%). If children and young people are grouped
together, they account for 25% and physical and mental health for 26% of expected
service closures.
Weighting responses for services delivered by respondents
Weighting for proportion of services delivered by groups responding to the survey
shows that the highest cuts proportionately are to health services, followed by
children and young people‟s services, specialist services for particular communities,
support services for VCS organisations and employment and skills services. Thus all
these services are estimated to be at a disproportionate risk of closure in 2012-13.
Preventative versus curative services
Again preventative services were felt to be most in danger with four times as many
(32%) potentially being cut, as compared to curative services (8%) expected to be
closed in 2012-13.
56
4.4.8 Have you had to use your unrestricted or free reserves to pay for some or
all of your organisation‟s expenditure over 2011-12? (n = 252)
54% of organisations have had to use reserves to pay for some or all of their
expenditure this year. 8% said that their organisation had no free reserves in 201112.
Response Response
Percent
Total
1 Yes
53.6%
135
2 No
29.4%
74
3 Don‟t Know
10.3%
26
My organisation had
4 no unrestricted or free
reserves in 2011-12
7.5%
19
Comparing local and wider area organisations
Slightly more wider area organisations (56%) had used free reserves to pay for
expenditure over 2011-12 than local organisations (50%). However, a greater
proportion of local organisations (11%) had no unrestricted or free reserves in 201112 than wider area organisations (4%).
4.4.9 If yes, by the end of 2011-12, are your organisation‟s unrestricted or free
reserves… (n = 133)
Response Response
Percent
Total
1 Zero
6.8%
9
2
Less than one
month‟s expenditure
8.3%
11
3
Less than three
month‟s expenditure
37.6%
50
4
Less than one year‟s
expenditure
30.1%
40
5
More than one year‟s
expenditure
3.8%
5
13.5%
18
6 Don‟t Know
At the end of the year, 7% of organisations had no free reserves. Only 34% of
respondents stated that they had more than three month‟s expenditure in free
reserves. Over half (53%) of respondents had less than three months‟ expenditure in
free reserves at the end of 2011-12.
57
Comparing local and wider area organisations
No local organisations, and 6% of wider area organisations, had free reserves worth
more than one year‟s expenditure at the end of 2011-12. There was no difference
between local (6%) and wider area (7%) organisations reporting zero free reserves
at the end of 2011-12.
4.5.1 What support do you need to help you respond to economic and/or
policy changes in 2012-13? (n = 244)
Response Response
Percent
Total
1 Fundraising
58.2%
142
Lobbying or
campaigning for
2
sustainable funding
/contracts
43.4%
106
Lobbying or
3 campaigning for policy
change
36.9%
90
Influencing
commissioning
4
processes / needs
assessments
40.6%
99
5
Tendering for
contracts
36.9%
90
6
Demonstrating your
impact or added value
44.3%
108
Business support,
such as planning,
7
governance or
employment advice
26.2%
64
8
Collaboration and
partnership working
43.9%
107
9
Consortia
development
20.9%
51
10.7%
26
10 Mergers
11
Support to work with
the private sector
26.6%
65
12
Support to work with
the statutory sector
22.1%
54
13
We do not have any
support needs
10.2%
25
14 Other, please specify:
1.2%
3
58
The greatest support needs are around fundraising (58%), with other common needs
being support to lobby and campaign on VCS funding (43%); influence policy (37%);
measure impact (44%); collaboration or partnership working (44%). There was
considerably more demand for support on collaboration and partnership working
(44%) than consortia development (27%) or merger (11%).
10% of respondents said that they had no support needs with reasons given
including:
Two (1%) organisations were closing because of loss of all their funding
One (0.5%) works with its national centre when it needs support
One (0.5%) said its work was too specialist to make any external support
worthwhile as it would take so long to understand their organisation
One (0.5%) said that policy changes did not impact on their organisation‟s work
One (0.5%) said that their needs varied too widely over time to decide
Of those who answered „other‟:
One (0.5%) said they didn‟t know
One (0.5%) wanted help to ensure their work continued to reflect their mission,
rather than simply surviving for its own sake
One (0.5%) wanted more acknowledgement of the importance of localism and
that wider consortia did not always bring economies of scale
4.5.2 Do you have any suggestions as to how London Voluntary Service
Council (LVSC), policy makers and funders can help support you in the year
ahead?
4.5.2a Suggestions for LVSC (n = 99)
Fifty-seven (58%) see LVSC's role as proactively campaigning and lobbying
funders and commissioners, including London Councils, trust funders, the Mayor
of London, Greater London Authority (GLA) and national government. Suggestions
for doing this included:
Collecting evidence on the role and benefits of the VCS in the capital, including
the benefits of small, specialist and equalities groups
Lobbying for improvements to funding practices and commissioning processes
for the sector
Defending high quality services and good employment practices in the VCS
Improving partnership working within the sector and helping groups to engage
with funders and commissioners by providing a united lobbying voice for
London's VCS
Sending out clear, useful and up-to-date information (including contact details of
commissioners and funders) to support groups to engage in this work
Monitoring and publicising successes and changes in funding and
commissioning policy and practice that makes improvements for the VCS and its
users
59
12% specifically mentioned LVSC‟s role in providing evidence and arguments to
funders and commissioners on the benefits of small, specialist and equalities VCS
groups and community development approaches. 3% specifically mentioned making
the case for the different needs in London and the role of London‟s VCS in
addressing these. 3% felt LVSC should lobby to stop minimum level contracts and
payment by results models being applied inappropriately to London‟s VCS
organisations by commissioners and prime contractors. 3% argued that LVSC
should specifically campaign to improve sub-contracting arrangements between
prime contractors and the capital‟s VCS. 2% felt LVSC should gather evidence of the
benefits, and campaign for funders to support VCS infrastructure organisations. 2%
stated that LVSC should develop arguments and campaign to ensure funders and
commissioners take a long-term cost-saving approach by investing in preventative
services.
Overall, 23% felt that LVSC should have a policy influence and communications
role. 5% praised LVSC‟s current policy work but some felt it could be more proactive, bring the sector together better to work on issues more collaboratively and
provide clearer information and communications.
16% requested that LVSC measure the impacts of new policy and its
implementation. Issues suggested included the impacts of cuts on London‟s VCS
and their service users (8%, with three suggesting that LVSC should continue its
present work on this issue), the impacts of welfare reform (3%) and, in particular,
housing benefit reform (1%) in London. 2% mentioned collecting evidence of issues
arising from recent legal aid cuts and 2% said collecting case studies and
information on the implementation of the Localism Act.
16% wanted LVSC to provide more support on partnership working,
collaboration and consortia development, not just between VCS organisations
but also with the private sector, the statutory sector (including the NHS) and with
trade unions. Some of this work should be specifically with London‟s VCS, bringing
them together to develop a united voice to lobby policymakers and funders. Other
cross-sector partnerships could provide in-kind support, share good practice and
training across the sectors and support higher quality, more integrated service
provision. Support for small and specialist VCS organisations to collaborate and/or
develop consortia is particularly important in the present economic climate when they
are often felt to be too small to be cost effective when commissioned individually.
15% wanted LVSC to provide more training and one-to-one support services,
particularly around organisational issues such as business planning,
collaboration, merger, tendering, contract negotiation and related VAT issues,
measuring impact, the pension system and fundraising. 5% specifically mentioned
that this training should be free in the present financial climate. One respondent
suggested that LVSC should establish and manage a team of expert volunteers to
provide support on these issues, while another suggested that LVSC should
establish and support Centres of Excellence to share learning, knowledge and skills.
9% of respondents to this question specifically mentioned that LVSC needed to do
more face-to-face work, come out to meet groups, be more inclusive and more
proactively engage grassroots groups and communities. An additional 3% of
60
respondents wanted LVSC to work better and more closely with local Councils
for Voluntary Service in London, 2% of respondents‟ suggested that LVSC should
work more closely in partnership with specialist equalities VCS infrastructure
organisations and 7% suggested that it should continue or improve support of
equalities work with small and specialist organisations. There is a clear need to
better link grassroots community development, borough-level VCS organisations and
equalities groups to address issues that affect London‟s VCS as a whole. This could
be facilitated by LVSC adopting a more outreach-based approach, increasing its own
collaborations and promoting and facilitating more London-wide partnership working.
5% of respondents felt that LVSC should have a greater role in networking VCS
organisations themselves, as well as with policymakers and funders.
Suggestions included more free events, roundtables, virtual e-mail groups, use of
social media and more effective and frequent two-way communications.
Finally, 3% of respondents stated that they did not have any suggestions for LVSC
nor require any support from them, while two respondents had not heard of LVSC
and did not have a clear idea of its role.
61
15billion is an independent agency that makes a difference by supporting young people
into employment and training. Business Development Manager Philip Mathew is relieved
that 15billion was not involved in the government-funded Work Programme this year:
“The Work Programme is officially in dire straits. Some organisations have gone into
liquidation as a result of the payment by result rules. The latest performance figures do
not read at all well.”
Meanwhile, 15billion continues to do what it does best: providing a lifeline for some of
London‟s most vulnerable young people.
Dega* came to the UK as a refugee from Somalia under very difficult circumstances.
She was attending college but has had to drop out to look for employment in order to
feed the family. She is now volunteering with 15billion whiles she seeks full time
employment.
She says, “Before the recession you could find a job in many fields but now there are
only a few jobs, in very limited areas. 15billion provides people with the opportunity to
train and gain the experience they need. 15billion is very important to me because it is
allowing me to gain valuable knowledge about the recruitment and training industry.”
After suffering serious childhood trauma, John* turned to crime. When he came out of
jail he was determined to turn over a new leaf. 15billion supported him onto a
construction course, which he passed with flying colours, and he is now a peer educator
at 15billion, supporting other young adults.
John says, “The recession has affected me a lot: to change my life I needed to get a job.
15billion gave me this opportunity so I pursue my goals and thank them very much for
giving me this chance. 15billion is one of the very few organisations that stick with their
words! Without them I know for sure I would be committing crime. 15billion gave me this
second chance. I will not fail again in life.”
*names have been changed
4.5.2b Suggestions for policymakers (n = 92)
34% of respondents suggested there should be more training available to
help policymakers better understand the VCS and vice versa
23% thought that policymakers should take more time to evaluate the impact
of their policies and mitigate any negative effects
17% wanted policymakers to measure the social impacts of their policies.
15% thought that policymakers needed to address the impact of changes in
commissioning on smaller VCS organisations, specifically mentioning
payment by results, larger contracts, minimum contract levels, prime contractor
behaviour and allocating risk
14% suggested that policymakers should take more account of evidence in
formulating policy
62
13% thought there should be more emphasis on preventative services,
which saved money in the long-term
13% thought policymakers should consider how their policies could better
support smaller and local VCs organisations and
11% wanted policymakers to give greater consideration to reducing inequality
when formulating policy
Other suggestions included:
Better understanding and support for VCS infrastructure (4%)
Ringfence specific funds for VCS organisations (3%)
Better understanding and support for specialist organisations or services that
worked with particular communities (3%)
Address the problems with immigration policy that leave people unable to work
(2%)
Provide more support and subsidies for individuals to enter training and
education at a time when unemployment is high (1%)
Measure the environmental impacts of their policies (1%)
Specifically revise housing policy in London (1%)
4.5.2c Suggestions for funders (n = 92)
65% suggested that the operational practice of funders could be improved with
16% specifically mentioning that there needs to be less bureaucracy, 12% better
communication with funded organisations and potential fundees, 10% thought that
they should address the problems caused for VCS organisations by large contracts,
payment by results and the use of prime contractor models, 10% that they should
demonstrate greater openness and accountability and 8% that should be less risk
averse. Another 6% thought that funders still unnecessarily favoured new projects
above funding services that were proven to work, while 3% felt funders needed to
provide longer timescales to complete tenders for contracts.
15% thought that funders should target more funding at small and local
organisations
12% that they should work more in partnership with the VCS
11% thought that they should specifically fund VCs infrastructure
10% that they should invest more in preventative and/or policy work
10% that they should specifically target their funding at reducing inequality
and promoting social cohesion
9% that they should target funds to specialist organisations or services
that work with particular communities
9% that they should provide longer-term funding agreements
7% that funders should ring-fence some of their funds for the VCS and
5% that they need to work better and more closely with other funders
Other suggestions included:
Funders should provide more transitional funding to help VCS organisations to
prepare for the new economic and policy climate (2%)
63
Funders should publicise and advocate for the organisations that they fund (2%)
More funding needs to be targeted at medium-sized groups (2%)
More funding should address climate change / environmental sustainability (1%)
Funders should have more awareness about how much it costs to recruit, train
and support volunteers (1%)
Funders should provide more resources and support for credit unions (1%)
“I found Southwark Muslim Women‟s Association (SMWA) at a very difficult time,”
says Mariam*. “I was isolated and living in a hostel with my young daughter. I had
applied to do other courses but they were full or had no crèche. SMWA had both.
“More than anything, SMWA provided me with emotional support and helped me
access other services I needed. I was so vulnerable, and the people I met here were
just so kind. Without SMWA I would be one of the many women who end up being
treated for depression. Instead, I have had a chance to get my life on track and I
have now applied to do an access course to go to University.”
SMWA's Bridging Communities interfaith project aims to empower women to share
information about their faith and culture. The project is also helping SMWA reach out
to other community organisations and make new links with people from other faiths.
However, SMWA foresees challenges over the coming year. "We realize we must
continue to improve in the areas of monitoring and building up our resources. With
the right kind of training we can continue to improve in this area. We also need to
find better ways of reaching out to potential members, to find new links to women
who can benefit from our services, whatever their faith.
"For this we need not only the funding and expert advice, but also the staff. Without
good communications and outreach we cannot reach the people who can really
benefit from our services. However, we know that funding itself will be one of the
major issues we face this year.
“There is much discussion about the „Big Society‟ as a new way of providing services
from the current government and it cannot be denied that there is a lot of uncertainty
about what this really entails. But at SMWA we know that with sufficient support and
funding, small groups can make a big contribution. We are delighted to be running a
volunteer programme that gives people the skills, knowledge and confidence to
contribute on a personal level to society. But we also need the commitment of a core
team of dedicated, trained staff to make sure that projects such as these can be
developed to their full potential."
*names have been changed
64
4.6.1 Who funds respondents? (n= 247)
Response Response
Percent
Total
1 Local Authority
55.9%
138
2 Primary Care Trust
18.6%
46
Another local
3 statutory sector
funder
8.1%
20
4 London Councils
15.4%
38
Greater London
Authority
7.7%
19
3.2%
8
Government
Department
21.1%
52
8 National Lottery
33.6%
83
9 Local charitable trust
26.7%
66
5
Another regional
6 statutory sector
funder
7
10
London-based
charitable trust
40.5%
100
11
National charitable
trust
41.3%
102
12
Private sector
sources
24.7%
61
39.3%
97
13 Other, please specify:
The majority of respondents (56%) received some local authority funding. This is
significant at a time of considerable local authority funding cuts. 27%, 41% and 41%
respectively received funding from local, regional or national charitable trusts
suggesting that a significant proportion of organisations are not wholly dependent on
Government funding. 25% received funding from the private sector.
Analysis of „other‟ sources of funding
Income generation / membership
Donations
No funding / in-kind support only
Other charities
Schools and colleges
20.6%
8.1%
3.2%
2.4%
2.0%
51
20
8
6
5
65
Church
European
Irish government
Personal budgets
Investment income
LINKs
0.8%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
2
1
1
1
1
1
From those that answered „other‟, there is a reasonably large proportion (21%) that
receive some of their funding from income generating activities/membership fees
and (8%) from donations.
71 organisations (29%) did not receive any funds from the public sector, although
this included the 8 organisations who received no funding at all. The remaining 26%
were mainly funded through trusts, the Big Lottery, the private sector, donations and
their own income generating activities.
The Third Sector Research Centre found that 36% of VCS organisations received
some funding from statutory sources, but this is higher for certain groups and those
in deprived areas88. Amongst our respondents this was 71% indicating London
organisations, particularly those LVSC works with, are more dependent on public
sector funding.
Comparing local and wider area organisations
More local groups (68%) were funded by local authorities than wider area groups
(48%) and many fewer local groups were funded by national government (6 vs 24%).
National Lottery funding was higher for wider area groups (35 vs 28%), as was
funding from the private sector (27 vs 14%) and through income generating activities
(21 vs 4%). Local and regional trust funding was reasonably similar between the two.
4.6.2 Frontline or infrastructure organisations (n = 241)
Response Response
Percent
Total
1
Frontline service delivery
organisation
39.4%
95
2nd
2 tier/Infrastructure/support/umbrella
organisation
24.9%
60
A mixture of frontline delivery and
support services
33.6%
81
4 Don't Know
0.8%
2
5 Other, please specify:
1.2%
3
3
66
39% provided frontline services, 25% were purely infrastructure and 34% provided a
mixture of both. Of the three that responded „other‟ one was a grant funder and two
said that they had closed all their services as a result of loss of funding.
The NCVO Almanac 2012 found that only 1% of voluntary and community sector
organisations were „umbrella bodies‟. This could indicate that LVSC‟s survey and
contacts are biased to infrastructure organisations or that groups themselves define
„infrastructure services‟ much more widely than sector „umbrella bodies‟ or a
combination of the two.
4.6.3 Geographical area served (n = 244)
Response Response
Percent
Total
1 National
23.0%
56
2 London-wide
20.1%
49
3
Several London
boroughs
25.0%
61
4
A single London
borough
23.8%
58
A small
5 neighbourhood or
ward in London
6.6%
16
6 Other, please specify:
1.6%
4
There was a roughly equal split between groups working at national, regional, subregional and borough level. Only 7% worked at neighbourhood level suggesting that
this section of VCS is significantly under-represented amongst survey respondents.
Of the four respondents replying „other‟ one worked in two London boroughs only,
one mainly worked in Tunbridge Wells, although also in London one also worked in
Oxfordshire and one also worked in the USA.
4.6.4 Services the respondents provided (n = 247)
Most popular services provided by respondents were volunteering (42%) followed by
support services for other VCS organisations (40%) employment & skills (39%) and
advice services (37%). 30% provided specialist services for particular communities.
When children & young people are grouped together they cover 40% of respondents
and physical and mental health together, 38%
67
Response Response
Percent
Total
Advice services (e.g.
benefits, debt,
1
employment,
redundancy advice)
37.2%
92
Support services for
other organisations
2 (e.g. infrastructure
support, fundraising
support/advice)
40.0%
99
3 Volunteering
42.1%
104
4
Physical health and
care services
20.6%
51
5
Mental health and
care services
26.3%
65
6
Advocacy and/or
interpreting services
25.9%
64
7
Employment & Skills
services
38.5%
95
8 Children‟s services
24.7%
61
9 Youth services
30.0%
74
Older people‟s
services
19.4%
48
Specialist services for
11 a particular
community
30.4%
75
Direct support for
those in poverty (e.g.
12
individual grants or
food packages)
10.1%
25
Services for those
13 who misuse drugs and
alcohol
14.2%
35
16.2%
40
15 victims of crime
7.7%
19
Support services for
16 ex-offenders or those
at risk of offending
15.4%
38
15.4%
38
10
Domestic and/or
14 sexual violence
Support services for
Services for the
17 homeless (or those at
risk of homelessness)
68
Response Response
Percent
Total
Recycling or
18 environmental
8.1%
20
9.3%
23
services
19 Other, please specify:
Other services mentioned were:
Arts and culture
6
Education
5
Support for carers
4
Mediation
2
Mentoring
2
Community development 2
Parenting support
1
2.4%
2.0%
1.6%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.4%
Again this does not follow the spread of organisational services identified in NCVO‟s
UK Civil Society Almanc 2012 where organisations delivering health and social care
make up the greatest subsector of the voluntary and community sector (23%) and,
for example, housing organisations make up only 2% of the sector. This could be the
result of the different cateogrisation processes used within the almanac and this
service, but also suggests that LVSC‟s respondents were less likely to include
specific subsectors of the VCS such as international development or grant-making
foundations.
In attempt to address any sampling bias, comparisons of subsectors were weighted
inversely according to the number of respondents providing that particular service.
69
This chapter provides an in-depth picture of the impact of the economic climate and
policy changes on Londoners and the VCS, including staff, volunteers and trustees,
combining LVSC‟s survey findings with research and data collected by others.
The impact on advice services, health, and volunteering have remained key themes
since LVSC started the Big Squeeze campaign in 2009.
In 2012, advice remained a key service area affected by increases in demand while
organisations facing disproportionate service closures included those providing
support with employment & skills, specialist support for particular communities and
VCS infrastructure support, as well as those working with children & young people.
This year‟s results also suggested that services addressing the longer-term impacts
of poverty were starting to see increased demand, including providers of support in
health and care, crime and victim support, housing and homelessness, and
alleviating poverty.
It has been another tough year for London‟s voluntary and community sector (VCS).
Forty-one per cent of organisations closed services in 2011-12. Estimates from
respondents‟ answers suggested a net total loss of funding to London‟s VCS of 22%
over the year (plus a 26% reduction in net public sector funding over the year).
Research from other sources reinforces these findings. Of 39 London VCS groups
providing figures for 2011-12 on the Voluntary Sector Cuts website89, the average
cut is 26% of their previous annual income. Furthermore, LVSC‟s analysis of the
data collected by False Economy for London identifies information shows that cuts
made to the VCS by 18 London local authorities and under the regional London
Councils grants scheme90 total £87million. Extrapolated to all 32 London local
authorities and the City of London this could equate to £160million lost to the city‟s
sector from this year‟s local authority spending cuts alone.
Similarly, NCVO‟s desk-based research91 estimates that total local government
spending on the VCS was reduced by £90.3 million nationally in 2011-12,
(suggesting an estimated reduction of £19million in London, assuming 21% of the
VCS is based in the capital, from NCVO‟s own figures). However, if central
Government cuts are also included they calculate total government spending on the
sector will be reduced by £178million across the country in 2011-12 (an extrapolated
loss of approximately £37million in the capital).
ACEVO produced research92 based on data provided by 1,725 VCS organisations
that applied to the Office for Civil Society Transition Fund. It estimated that even in
the best-case scenario, charities were set to lose 7.6% of their statutory income,
while English local authorities faced an average 4.4% drop in spending power in
2012. Applicants reported facing cuts of £412m; based on what was happening to
70
these organisations, cuts to the wider sector were likely to be between £970m and
just over £5.5bn. 23% (405) of applicants were based in London; these
organisations had on average lost 43.6% of their income. London-based applicants
reported a total income loss of £145.95 million. This suggests that overall, given the
large number of charities in London, this region was most severely affected in terms
of income loss to the VCS.
Indeed the Big Squeeze 2012 survey suggested that LVSC‟s respondents were
significantly more reliant on public sector funding than VCS organisations nationally.
This is confirmed by LVSC‟s analysis of London organisations involved in the
Cabinet Office‟s Third Sector survey93 and research from the Third Sector Research
Centre94 which found that that VCS organisations in the capital are more dependent
upon public sector funding, and suggesting that London‟s VCS will be more
adversely affected by public sector funding cuts than VCS organisations across the
UK as a whole.
The Big Squeeze 2012 also found that 54% of respondents used free reserves to
cover running costs in 2011-12, while at the end of 2011-12, only 34% reported more
than three months expenditure in free reserves. 8% had no free reserves in 2011-12.
This tallied with a Community Matters membership survey95 which showed that most
of their member respondents were living on reserves, which had dropped by an
average of 29% (down to £31,000). The Association of Charitable Foundations has
also reported that its members are receiving more applications from charities that
look to be at financial risk, with many having low or no reserves or running at a
deficit96.
39% of organisations made staff redundant in 2011-12. Analysis of the Labour Force
Survey between December 2010 and December 2011 showed that employment in
the VCS fell by nearly 9%97, an estimated fall of 70,000 employees over the past 12
months. In comparison, public sector employment fell by 4.3% whilst private sector
employment rose by 1.5% over the same period. The majority of the VCS fall (80%)
occurred among female employees, with 56,000 fewer in the sector than 12 months
previously, a decline of 10%. London saw a proportionately greater loss of 41,000
staff (59% of the total workforce loss).
Despite these high levels of service closure, loss of funding and staff redundancy
across the VCS in London. this year‟s survey demonstrated that the sector was
responding more strategically to economic pressures than in previous years.
Changes in ways of working relied more on strategic planning to better met users‟
needs in innovative ways than in previous years‟ surveys, when shorter-term, less
sustainable changes, such as using more volunteers and staff reducing paid hours or
increasing unpaid hours, were more often cited.
Respondents to the Big Squeeze 2012 reported the largest increases in demand for
their services, and expect further increases next year. This was confirmed by the
63% of all respondents who said that welfare reforms and 45% who said that legal
aid cuts had, or were likely to have, disadvantaged the communities they worked
with. While this year‟s survey did not provide conclusive evidence of more advice
71
services being cut, closure of advice services was disproportionate in the 2011
survey. This suggests that advice services in London are seeing large increases in
demand at a time when funding remains the same or is being reduced.
This finding echoes a report by Justice for All98 which found that advice charities
were fast approaching a bottom line below which they cannot operate. Many had
already closed (including Law for All and the Immigration Advisory Service) and
more would follow. The report identified local authority funding as the biggest source
of income for half of advice charities, usually funding core running costs and
generalist advice. Following cuts, 22% of advice charities faced closure and most
were making major cutbacks to frontline services. 62% were now advising fewer
clients. This echoes the Big Squeeze 2012 finding that 85% of respondents felt that
cuts to local authority budgets were having, or were likely to have, a negative impact
on the communities with which they work.
The Justice for All report found that legal aid rates had been cut by 10% since
October 2011 and that from April 2013, legal aid would be virtually removed all
together from charities. Face-to-face advice was under most threat, although this
core service made the biggest difference to users and saved long-term costs.
The Capitalise 2011 report99 from the London Debt Strategy Advisory Group also
predicted a significant rise in the demand for debt advice from 2011 nationally. The
higher levels of debt arrears in London that they evidenced suggested that both
demand and need for debt advice in the capital were likely to be at a higher level. In
relation to proposed changes to housing benefits and other welfare reforms, the
report forecast an increase in the risk of rent arrears amongst tenants in London.
Similarly the London Advice Watch report100 on the impact of changes to public
sector funding of free advice services in London found:
London has some of the greatest need for advice services, but will be the
greatest loser if the government cuts much of civil legal aid as currently planned
Just under 77,000 Londoners will lose housing, employment, debt, welfare
benefits and immigration advice
If the legal aid cuts are implemented Londoners will lose £9.33million in funding
for housing, employment, debt, and welfare benefits law cases. The research
estimates this will cost the government £55m in other expenditure
Despite high number of advice services in London there remain significant gaps
in provision, particularly in outer areas
There are barriers to Londoners from the lowest social classes using telephone
advice lines and they are reluctant to do so
Government Transition Fund payments to advice providers will be largely
wasted, as organisations will be unable to replace legal aid and other
government funding
One VCS advice organisation responding to the Big Squeeze 2012 reported on the
importance of linking advice work with policy change to address policies that
systematically failed their clients and led to increased demand for advice. They said:
72
“Current available funding of advice services is sufficient to meet only a
fraction of unmet need and there is no long-term commitment to on-going
funding. It is therefore very important to invest in initiatives and services that
will... lessen demand in the longer term... Not investing in preventative work or
early action will fail to address underlying systemic failings and fail to realise
the full potential of advice services which, when they work well, can transform
lives, improve outcomes across public services and save public money.”
The Big Squeeze survey 2012 suggested that children & young people‟s (CYP)
services continued to be disproportionately cut across London.
This confirms research by the National Children‟s Bureau101, which found that that
this large sector within the VCS (49% of English charities work with children and
young people and 26% work in this area only) is amongst the hardest hit by
government austerity measures. 52% of CYP VCS organisations were reliant on
statutory funding, as opposed to only 38% of the wider VCS, making them more
vulnerable to public sector spending cuts than VCS organisations in general.
In addition, Unite‟s survey of 147 play workers in England from across sectors (of
whom 42% were in the VCS) found that 38% said play organisations were planning
to cut services completely; 74% said employers had made cuts or intended to; 55%
said play staff had been made redundant; and 81% said employers had reduced
staff hours.
The results of a Freedom of Information request by Unite to the 430 English and
Welsh councils on their youth service spending was responded to by 112 councils,
with 82 providing information to compare cuts from 2010-11 to 2011-12102. This
showed that 20% of youth centres were due to close in the next year alone. In the
past year, spending on services for young people had dropped by a national average
of 12.3%, with London services experiencing an average drop of 13.7%. LB Bromley
reported the third highest cut of all responding councils of 27%, while LB Haringey
reported the loss of 7 youth centres, with only 4 set to remain open in the borough.
A London Funders event103 on cuts to CYP services in the capital following LVSC‟s
Big Squeeze 2011 noted particular needs associated with CYP in the capital:
London‟s child population is growing (0-4 year olds rising by 12% from 200833).
Youth unemployment in London affects one in four (against one in five
nationally).
There will be a shortfall of 70,000 school places in the capital in the next four
years.
Tight financial settlements for local authorities and changes in health commissioning
resulted in front-loaded cuts to the children and young people‟s VCS in 2011-12.
Static council tax in 2012-13 was expected to add further to these pressures. Local
authorities account for at least 60% of funding for CYP services in London. The loss
of regional structures is beginning to be felt, yet the need for services to liaise and be
coordinated across Greater London remains.
73
The John Lyons Charitable Trust (a funder of CYP VCS organisations) had received
fewer applications for grants in 2011-12: among the reasons were severe cuts in
local authority funding that had led to the closure of many small and medium groups
working with children and young people, and a reduction in VCS staff working on
development and fundraising. Despite this there has been a resurgence in
applications from youth clubs which had proved resilient due, often, to strong support
in the local community and long-standing experience of applying for grants from
foundations. The Trust is also funding new services especially in areas where
traditional youth clubs are lacking.
The BBC‟s Children in Need Fund reported a big spike in applications for small
grants, while receiving fewer bigger applications than in recent years. While the
average value of funding requested was rising, there was a notable drop in the
quality of applications. Finally, levels of applicants‟ free reserves were lower than in
previous years.
27% of this year‟s Big Squeeze 2012 survey respondents mentioned changes to
educational policies, including the end of Educational Maintenance Allowance, as
having a negative impact on the communities with which they worked, specifically on
the confidence and aspirations of young people:
“Much of our work is involved in providing young people with employability
skills, but sadly there are no jobs. Changes in educational policies and cuts in
school budgets will inhibit our ability to offer employability skills, work related
learning and work experience to young people. This will impact on self
confidence, motivation and attainment and leave them inadequately prepared
for the world of work and learning.”
The Big Squeeze 2012 survey found that 48% of respondents had seen worsening
health (including mental health) amongst service users in 2011-12 and 47% thought
that re-organisation and efficiency saving in the NHS had had, or were likely to have
a negative impact on the communities with which they worked. Twenty-one per cent
predicted that stress and major reform of the NHS would reduce the health and wellbeing of their service users in 2012 -13, while only 7% though that the NHS reforms
and efficiency savings would have a positive impact.
“Feedback direct from users [is that they] cannot afford classes. This
community is already vulnerable, mental health is a major issue and they are
not eating healthily as they face more poverty and this leads to worsening
health and general wellbeing.”
“People with mental health problems need 'hope'. There is such a heavy
atmosphere surrounding the economic climate and that feeds into the
negativity that's around already. With regard to re-organisation and
'efficiencies' within the NHS - translated to mental health this means that for
'efficiency' reasons people in our area are now going into acute inpatient
wards out of borough - this cuts them off from their community and affects
74
visiting. It is being proposed that longer term treatment wards will also be out
of borough.”
There is extensive evidence that recession and economic decline have a negative
effect on both physical and mental health. Experience from previous economic
downturns predicts an increase in health inequalities, with more suicides, attempted
suicides, homicides, domestic violence and mental health problems and worse
disease outcomes such as tuberculosis and HIV104. There is also evidence of a
longer term effect. One Dutch study of mortality over almost 200 years showed that
being born during a recession increases risk of mortality in later life, and
disproportionately so for the poorest105. In addition, unemployment (particularly longterm) increases the risk of poor physical and mental health, and is associated with
unhealthy behaviours such as increased smoking and alcohol consumption and
decreased physical exercise. The health and social effects resulting from a long
period of unemployment can last for years106.
A report from Newcastle107 investigated some impacts of the NHS reforms on VCS
organisations providing health and care services. It found that many organisations
receiving funding from Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) were concerned about whether
this would be replaced when Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) took over
budgets. Many reported that although GPs had shown initial interest in their services
this tailed off when it became clear that these non-clinical services required funding.
VCS organisations who had used funding from outside the health service to meet the
cost of working with referrals from GP practices and other statutory providers
reported that ithey would have to start charging commissioners for such work, if it
was to continue. The report recommended that CCGs should consider grant funding
rather than contract funding some of the smaller non-clinical VCS services. LVSC
suggests this solution would encourage a preventative approach to healthcare.
An earlier report by NCVO and the King‟s Fund108 emphasised the difficulties caused
to VCS organisations by the transition to the new NHS structures. They reported that
as PCTs were dissolved, many VCS organisations rapidly lost their key contacts. As
CCGs were embryonic organisations grappling with a range of new responsibilities
and their own organisational development, they were unlikely to be able to offer
support to the sector during the transition period. They argued that funding and
support needed to be made available to help VCS organisations with the transition to
new arrangements.
Big Squeeze 2012 results showed, although it was not clear whether there had been
a higher rate of closure of mental and physical health and care services in 2011-12
(as had been reported in 2011), respondents felt that health and care services were
likely to be disproportionately closed in 2012-13.
Although only 5% of Big Squeeze 2012 respondents specifically mentioned cuts to
social care services and 1% less support for carers as having a negative impact on
the communities they work with, this was not a separate tick box category in the
survey, and many may have felt that this was covered by the „reform of the NHS‟
category. This is a major issue for older people, although not exclusively, and
research by Age UK London and the Greater London Forum for the Elderly 109 has
shown that spending by local authorities on older people‟s services in London has
75
shrunk over the last three financial years, despite increased numbers of older people
in the population. They reported a spending cut of just over 3.4% from 2009 -10 to
2011-12. This figure would have been almost 7.4% without an additional transfer of
just over £99.85 million from the NHS to support social care budgets across London.
Finally, funding for drug and alcohol services is particularly affected by NHS reforms
with the National Treatment Agency (NTA) being absorbed by the new body Public
Health England, while substance misuse service funding will no longer be ringfenced. Local drug and alcohol prevention, treatment and rehabilitation services are
expected to be commissioned by public health teams that are moving into local
authorities with integration provided by the input of local Health & Well Being Boards
while other funding is being transferred to the Mayor‟s Office for Policing & Crime in
London and prison drug and alcohol services will be commissioned by the NHS
Commissioning Board110. There is concern amongst VCS organisations involved in
providing drug and alcohol services that these changes could reduce service
provision and integration, particularly with mental health services111.
One specialist drug and alcohol VCS organisation responding to the Big Squeeze
2012 survey stated:
“Substance misuse money is ringfenced only up to March 31st 2013. Our
regulatory body the NTA will be absorbed in a shadow form (if they continue to
exist at all) into Public Health England and our commissioned services may all
be decommissioned. Substance misuse is not high on GP Commissioning,
Public Health England's or Health and Wellbeing Boards list of key priorities
so may well experience extensive disinvestment, leaving our service users
with no access to help.”
Furthermore DrugScope112 has found that young people experiencing problems with
drugs and alcohol will increasingly find it difficult to get support, as services close or
reduce their staff numbers. Drugscope found that some local authorities have
imposed funding cuts on their young people‟s services of up to 50%. A number of
young people‟s treatment services have already closed in the London boroughs of
Hammersmith & Fulham, Newham and Merton.
Increased worklessness was identified as a negative effect on service users by 56%
of Big Squeeze 2012 respondents and 21% thought that unemployment would
continue to rise and have negative impacts on the communities they worked with in
2012-13. Welfare reform and introduction of the Work Programme were identified as
having a negative impact on the communities they worked with by 63% and 39% of
respondents respectively. Only 5% though welfare reform would have or would be
likely to have a positive impact on the communities with which they worked. This
figure was only 6% for the introduction of the Work Programme.
“Long term unemployment will rise - as opportunities to obtain unskilled work
continue to fall. Commissioning and Work Programme policies have reserved
much more work solely for large and, generally, commercial organisations.
76
Waiting for 6 months to get paid - is too risky for us. [Our] organisation is
facing closure.”
Big Squeeze 2012 responses identified employment and skills services as
experiencing a large increase in demand in 2011-12 and expected to see more
increases in demand in 2012-13. At the same time, employment & skills services
were identified as experiencing disproportionate levels of closure in 2011-12 and it
was expected that this would continue in 2012-13.
The issue of growing unemployment in London has been demonstrated by the Office
for National Statistics (section 3.1.2), and this is a particular issue for young people
in London, with the most recent figures showing that long-term youth unemployment
in London increased by 7900 to almost 20,000 between 2011 and 2012113. The
ACEVO Commission on Youth Unemployment114found that unemployment at this
early stage of life leads to:
A greater likelihood of being unemployed and welfare-dependent later in life
In their mid-thirties, earnings on average of £1,500 - £3,000 per year less than
peers who had not been unemployed
A long-term adverse effect on mental and physical health
Possibly, greater involvement in criminal offending
A reduction in social mobility and an increase in social exclusion
The Commission estimated that the on-going impact of youth unemployment
represents £689 million per year nationally in future benefit payments due to
additional periods of unemployment.
Big Squeeze 2012 respondents raised concerns about the Work Programme
commissioning approach. Earlier research by LVSC115 has demonstrated the
negative impact of the Work Programme on the number of VCS providers
commissioned to deliver employment & skills services through Government welfare
to work programmes and this could explain why this subsector of the VCS is
particularly affected by closures, despite unemployment levels rising across London.
LVSC‟s research identified barriers presented to VCS providers by:
The Payment by Results model, which requires organisations to have
significant reserves or other ways to maintain cash flow
The minimum contract and large geographic size of contract areas for prime
contractors
The transfer of risk from Government to prime contractors and the subsequent
transfer of all this risk, in many cases from prime contractors to small VCS subcontractors
Complicated TUPE arrangements required to take on staff from previous
delivery organisations, which, in addition, were often not openly detailed prior to
the award of the contract
Lack of guaranteed numbers of referrals from prime contractors to many of the
VCVS organisations they sub-contract, resulting in many receiving no referrals
and hence no funding
77
Use of referral to VCS services by prime contractors as part of service user
support, for which they did not pay, despite receiving funding from government
for using such services to achieve volunteering or employment „results‟
In April 2012 LVSC reported that many VCS providers were still receiving no
referrals from the Work Programme despite being signed up as „tier 2‟ subcontractors with the prime providers116. A number of VCS sub-contractors have
withdrawn from their Work Programme subcontracts117.
Philip Blond, Director of think tank ResPublica, Phillip Blond, has written that:
“Both payment-by-results and the pre-tender capital requirements of the Work
Programme effectively excluded smaller charities and local social enterprise
providers. Prime contractors are meant to work with local charities, but there is little
doubt that both the goodwill and the resources of the charities are being
exploited.”118
A specialist VCS employment & skills service provider responding to our survey
stated:
“The Work Programme and welfare reform will only work if there are jobs for
people to access... Large companies are the only ones who can carry the
financial burden of the programme until the economy turns for the better so
logically the Government must seek ways to ensure the smaller players carry
less of the burden in the meantime. Failure to act now will have the following
consequences: the programme will fail; the Third Sector will cease to exist in
the welfare to work arena leaving a market devoid of innovation and diversity
with a few large players left in a dominant position able to dictate not only
price but policy to the Government.”
Disproportionate closures of VCS employment & skills services suggested by the Big
Squeeze 2012 is supported by data from False Economy (section 3.3.2), which
found that in the 18 London boroughs that responded to its Freedom of Information
requests on cuts to their funding of their local VCS, the largest cuts were to
organisations providing „economic‟ services, including employment & skills support.
Cuts to European employment and skills programmes, particularly the European
Social Fund (ESF)119 in London may also have contributed to the high number of
closures.
“[Our] funding finished yet clients are still wanting to access the service.
Those most in need of employability support and requiring higher level of
intervention are not and will not get it.”
Last year‟s Big Squeeze 2011 indicated that services that provided specialist support
to particular communities, such as women, Black Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME),
Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT), Deaf and disabled people, refugees
and asylum seekers, gypsies and travellers, and specialist religious organisations
78
were experiencing disproportionate loss of funding, as public services favoured costsaving by commissioning larger-scale generic services.
However only a very small proportion of organisations work within each of these subsectors: for example specialist women120, Deaf and disabled people121 and LGBT122
groups are each estimated to make up less than 1% of London‟s VCS. In this year‟s
survey we therefore created a category for groups providing specialist services for
particular communities, which when categorised together covered 30% of
respondents.
Eighty-three per cent of respondents to this question suggested that the greatest
negative impact of the economic and policy climate on their service users was the
loss of services that meet users‟ needs, while 48% thought this would have a
negative impact in 2012-13. This may be related to the finding that 85% of
respondents thought that cuts to local authority budgets had had, or were likely to
have a negative impact on the communities with which they work. In the past it has
often been local authorities or London councils that have funded these specialist
services in London.
One respondent predicted higher-than-average cuts to LGBT services in particular:
“The funded LGBT sector organisations are heavily dependent on income from
the public sector, it has twice the reliance on public sector income and half the
benefit from individuals when compared to VCS as a whole. This will have
repercussions for the activity level of organisations as the cuts bite.”
The survey also provided some evidence that, when taken together as a category,
specialist services for particular communities had faced a disproportionate number of
closures and that this was expected to continue in 2012-13.
There was anecdotal evidence that it was these particular communities that were
already most vulnerable and were being most negatively affected by the economic
and policy climate. 15% of respondents felt that inequality would increase, of whom
3% believed this would lead to more hate crime and less social cohesion.
A respondent whose organisation provided specialist support to gypsies and
travellers stated:
“Client numbers have increased for our accommodation/benefits advocacy
and advice, and the issues are new and more complex... The possibility of
providing for Traveller site accommodation has diminished with the Localism
[Act]. The closure of Traveller education services across London will impact
on children's education. The rise in rents in London and particularly in private
rented accommodation and the benefit cap will cause housing crisis and
eviction. Because of the size of their families Travellers are disproportionately
housed in private rented accommodation which they won‟t be able to afford
with the benefit cap. The requirement and conditions for looking for work are
difficult for Travellers because of poor literacy and poor access to the internet,
low educational qualifications and prejudice. There are specific bars to access
to legal aid for trespass which disproportionately affect travellers on
79
unauthorised camps. Loss of Traveller education services will further
disadvantage this marginal community.”
A recent report by the Victim Support Advocates Project provided evidence of the
need for more specialist non-police or third-party reporting services for the victims of
crime, the type of services that often provided by specialist VCS organisations. It
noted that victims of hate crime prefer to receive support from specialist
organisations for victims with certain characteristics, such as ethnicity, religion or
sexual orientation123.
A number of reports have found that specialist services for particular communities
are being cut more than generic services, including those for deaf and disabled
people‟s organisations124, BAME community organisations125 and specialist women‟s
domestic violence services126.
“We are a specialist organisation [providing support] on Immigration,
Nationality, Asylum and the Human Rights Act. London Councils stopped
supporting us. Two large national organisations providing [similar] such
services closed down in last 12 months.”
40% of responses to The Big Squeeze 2012 were from organisations providing VCS
support services (or infrastructure organisations). However, even when weighted for
this high level of representation, findings still suggested that in 2011-12 such
services had faced disproportionately higher numbers of closures and that this was
expected to continue in 2012-13.
“As a 2nd tier organisation, it is our members that we cannot support as fully
as previously and they in turn that cannot support their clients/service users.”
These findings are supported by last year‟s Big Squeeze 2011 report, which
demonstrated that in London local authorities where accurate figures were available,
the average percentage cut to local Council for Voluntary Service (CVS) funding by
the local authority was three times higher that then average percentage cut to the
local authority budget by central Government. This year‟s analysis of London
Councils funding cuts also showed that VCS infrastructure organisations were
particularly affected (section 3.3.2) accounting for 25% of London Councils funding
cuts in 2011-12.
This year‟s survey also suggests that there is a greater need for these services than
ever, with only 10% of respondents stating that they did not have any support needs,
90% stating that they had changed the way they work over the last year and 38%
providing detailed answers as to how LVSC could support them over the next year.
“[VCS support services] can help us to make a good application for funding
because we are still seeking funding to at least pay for our basic running costs
and one full time manager. Also, [VCS support services] can advocate on our
behalf to change the way small organisation with only one paid worker are
80
funded because they really make a big difference for the people that they
serve.”
Each area of support mentioned in the 2012 survey was needed by at least some
respondents. The highest support need expressed was for fundraising (58%)
followed by demonstrating impact and collaboration and partnership working (both
44%) and lobbying or campaigning for sustainable funding or contracts (43%). Need
for support around mergers (11%) had increased since the 2011 survey.
When asked what support LVSC specifically could provide, the majority of
respondents felt that it should be helping them to proactively campaign and lobby
funders and commissioners (58%). This is consistent with the NAVCA Chief Officer
Survey 2012, which found that 72% of CVSs responding were involved in campaigns
to save local VCS services127.
Respondents also thought that LVSC could support organisations to measure the
impacts of new policy and its implementation in London (16%), engage in
partnership working, collaboration or consortia development (16%) and provide more
training and one-to-one support (15%). Finally, 9% of respondents felt that LVSC
needed to adopt a more outreach-based approach to support so that there could be
better co-ordination between small grassroots, cross-borough and London-wide
frontline VCS organisations, equalities groups and local and specialist infrastructure
to develop a London-wide voice and greater collaboration across the capital.
Fifteen per cent of respondents delivered services for ex-offenders or those at risk of
offending, while 8% supported victims of crime. Five per cent of respondent
specifically thought that reforms to the criminal justice system and legal aid would
have a negative impact on the communities with which they worked in 2012-13.
Twenty-one per cent thought that changes to policing and crime policy had, or were
likely to have, a negative impact on their service users, with only 7% answering that
they thought they would have a positive impact.
“Courts deal with victims of crime at the lower end of the scale. People are
experiencing offences that are indirectly related to Domestic Abuse, AntiSocial Behaviour and youth deviancy. All [these are] areas that support has
been withdrawn from, and are areas which are inter-connected but not obvious
when the official offence of a crime is looked at.”
Some support for the finding that changes to policing and crime policy would have a
negative impact on communities was provided by a recent statement from Victim
Support, who are currently campaigning against the Government‟s policy to devolve
the commissioning of victim and witness support to local Police & Crime
Commissioner area level128. In London this would mean that the Mayor‟s Office for
Policing & Crime would commission these services. Victim Support argue that this
would lead to greater inconsistency in victim support services across the country and
would cost an additional £21 million to set up. Their research in London found huge
inconsistencies in the services for victims across London as a result of different
81
commissioning models in the 32 boroughs and made recommendations for
improvements by the Mayor‟s Office for Policing & Crime. However, even if the
Mayor‟s Office improves the commissioning of such services across London, there
are still costs associated with its set up, which they argue would be better spent on
services for victims of crime.
The small number of groups working in this area responding to the Big Squeeze
2012 make findings less reliable but there was some suggestion that after weighting
for this, services supporting victims of crime had seen a higher than average
increase in demand in 2011-12 and it was expected that demand for support for exoffenders and those at risk of offending would see a higher increase in demand in
2012-13. This is consistent with evidence that levels of crime increase during a
recession129. Data from the Metropolitan Police Service shows that rape and
homophobic offences are the two crime types which increased the most in London
between May 2008 and January 2012 compared to the previous four years, by 32%
and 12% respectively130. These figures are also consistent with the 15% of Big
Squeeze 2012 respondents who felt that inequality would increase as a result of the
economic and policy climate and the 3% who predicted an increase in hate crime
and reduced community cohesion.
“Local police seem to de-prioritise domestic violence; [there are] fewer
specialist services; Supporting People funding has turned refuges in to
homeless hostels with minimal support and little life changing.”
The riots in August 2011, an extreme example of a collapse in community cohesion,
started in Tottenham in the London Borough of Haringey, and although they spread
over England in the next four days, the majority (68%) of disorder-related crimes
were recorded in the capital131. A recent cross-government report specifically
mentioned the role of the VCS in responding to the riots in a chapter entitled “Big
Society at Work”. It specified the work of London VCS organisations Hackney
Community and Voluntary Services, Croydon Voluntary Action, Leap Confronting
Conflict and Volunteer Centre Kensington & Chelsea. The report made a number of
recommendations for supporting the VCS to help reduce the chance of further such
unrest, including:
more effective commissioning of the VCS to deliver improved social, economic
and environmental well-being and
support for VCS organisations to give vulnerable and marginalised groups a
voice within local decision-making.
However, the findings of the Big Squeeze 2012 suggest that there are still huge
barriers to effective commissioning of the VCS, and that London VCS organisations
working with vulnerable and marginalised groups face disproportionately large
numbers of closures.
There was no evidence from this year‟s survey that crime and victim support VCS
services had faced disproportionate closures in London. However, a national
survey132 for specialist criminal justice system infrastructure support agency Clinks
found that of 75 respondents 95% had, or expected to have, a reduction in income,
77% were using their reserves to survive and 55% had made redundancies in 2011.
82
This suggests that organisations working in this specialist subsector maybe suffering
disproportionate impacts as average Big Squeeze survey percentages for these
questions were a lot lower: 60% reported a reduction in income (although this did not
include those who expected to see a reduction in come); 54% had used their
reserves and 39% had made staff redundant. Clinks argue that because VCS
organisations working with offenders are not as popular with the giving public, they
are more dependent on public sector funding, and so more at risk in the current
climate of public sector funding cuts.
The evidence provided in section 3.1.3 demonstrates the potentially disproportionate
impact of Government welfare reform, and in particular of housing benefit, in London
and suggest that rough sleeping and homelessness are increasing in the capital.
Forty-two per cent of Big Squeeze 2012 respondents reported that more service
users could not afford housing costs or risked homelessness. 63% and 48%
respectively though that welfare reform and housing policy had a negative impact on
the communities with which they worked; only 5% and 3% respectively thought the
impact was positive.
After weighting for services provided by respondents, there was a suggestion that
demand for VCS housing or homelessness services had increased in 2011-12 and
this increase was expected to continue in 2012-13.
“Many of our service users live in the private rented sector in Central London
and so face homelessness as a result 0f benefit cuts. Demand has more than
doubled but funding has decreased.”
“The number of callers to Stonewall Housing's Advice Services (for lesbian,
gay, bisexual and transgender people) has increased to its highest ever level.
The number in unaffordable accommodation has rocketed by 26% compared
to last year.”
However, the survey did not provide evidence that VCS housing and/or
homelessness services had faced disproportionate closures in 2011-12.This may be
because sample numbers were not high enough to demonstrate such an impact.
Homeless Link‟s most recent national Survey of Needs and Provision (SNAP)
report133 identified significant challenges for projects working with homeless people
as they faced constraints on their capacity to provide services while demands for
support increased. Fifty-eight per cent of homeless projects responding received
reduced funding in 2011/2012, and with 63% of these saying this had affected
services.
The SNAP report demonstrates that homelessness is increasing nationally, with
homelessness acceptances by local authorities 14% higher in 2011 than the year
before and recorded rough sleeping 23% higher in Autumn 2011 than in Autumn
2010. It shows that London has the highest density of homeless people at 647
people per bed space. However, although the number of projects in London requiring
83
their clients to have a local connection increased by 38% between SNAP 2011 and
2012, London remains the region with the highest average proportion of clients
without a local connection (23%).
Crisis recently released a briefing134 on the impacts of the housing benefit cuts,
showing that the average one bedroom claimant in London would lose £22 per week
in benefit payments as a result. The report predicted that ultimately these reforms
would cost more than is saved in reduced payments, as social problems such as
homelessness increase, and exhorted the government to protect the most vulnerable
from the brunt of the cuts.
Only 10% of Big Squeeze 2012 respondents reported that they provided direct
support to alleviate poverty, such as grants for individuals or food packages.
However, 40% stated that more of their service users could not afford essentials
such as food and fuel, and 14% predicted increased poverty next year in answer to
an open-ended question.
After weighting for the number of respondents providing services, results suggested
that demand for services providing direct support to alleviate poverty had increased.
“The recession means that people in work are seeing a drop in wages leading
to debt which would previously have been manageable.”
“A number of our women are finding it harder to access benefits, living
expenses are going up and they are finding it harder to cope.”
This confirms findings from the Guardian‟s „Breadline Britain‟ investigation135 which
showed that up to 3.6 million UK households were at risk of slipping into poverty as a
result of spiralling living costs, shrinking incomes and welfare benefit reforms.
Breadline Britain reported that the Trussell Trust, a charity that provide food parcels,
had seen a 100% increase in demand in a year. FareShare, a charity that supplies
millions of free meals to charities, food banks and breakfast clubs using food
donated by supermarkets, had also reported that it could not keep pace with
demand, which it expected to continue growing for at least five years. Recent
estimates also suggest that at least 560,000 London households live in fuel poverty,
meaning they need to spend 10% or more of their income on energy to heat their
home, and this is continuing to rise 136.
Year on year up to 2011, the Big Squeeze surveys showed increasing demand for
volunteering opportunities by service users. However, this year‟s findings are mixed.
18% of respondents said that there were fewer opportunities for their service users
to volunteer, while 11% thought that there were more. 12% of respondents reported
that they did not have enough volunteers, 16% that they did not have enough
qualified volunteers and 23% had a lack of volunteer management support which
meant they would not be able to meet any increases in demand for services in the
84
future. 52% of organisations reported that they were taking on more volunteers in
2011-12 but this was lower than the 56% of respondents in the 2011 survey.
“Having willing volunteers to help in our winter night shelter is a great thing.
However, the danger is an over-reliance on the voluntary sector with too little
investment. This will potentially undo any great work eventually.”
“We have taken on more volunteers to meet the demand on our services and
our capacity is fully stretched.”
“Increased requests for volunteering. Demand for volunteering into work
experience will increase further as unemployment remains high.”
One organisation responding to the 2012 survey stated that they were losing
volunteers as a result of the introduction of the Work Programme:
“We have lost valuable volunteers to the Work Programme yet 82% of our
volunteers are successful in securing employment. That opportunity is now
taken away as they are swept off to join the Work Programme.”
However, other volunteer-involving VCS organisations in London reported that they
had been sent volunteers by Work Programme contractors with out receiving any
contributions from their payments for volunteer placements.
After weighting responses for the type of services provided by respondents, it was
not clear that there was an increase in demand for volunteering services in 2011-12,
and there was no evidence of disproportionate closures to volunteering services.
However, anecdotal evidence from London volunteer centres suggests that they are
suffering further funding cuts and disproportionate closures.
“Our members are largely Volunteer Centres [VCs]: some have already lost out
as a result of commissioning, and the VC function is being picked up by other
organisations. At the same time, they are under pressure to work with
volunteers with additional needs eg unemployed, mental health etc. And the
age old hunt for core funding is still with us, of course. Big Society seems to
have disappeared - anyway, it didn't come with funding attached for existing
volunteering services. Local authority cuts [will also have a negative impact] many VCs get funding from their local authority”
These mixed findings are supported by other national research. The last Citizenship
Survey to be carried out by the Government137 found 25% of people reported that
they volunteered formally at least once a month in 2010-11, a lower rate than at any
point between 2001 and 2007-08 (when it ranged between 27% and 29%), but
unchanged on 2008-09 and 2009-10 levels. Levels of informal volunteering once a
year (55%) were unchanged on 2009-10 but lower than in all years prior to that,
following a particularly large decrease from 2008-09 to 2009-10 (from 62% to 54%).
This indicates that despite the Big Society initiative to promote more volunteering,
levels actually fell following the coalition government entering power.
85
An Institute of Volunteering Research study of local volunteer centres (VCs) 138 found
a decline in the average income of VCs, particularly in local government funding.
89% of VCs receive income from local government, which has decreased by 12%
(£28,000) from 09/10. Local government funding has a median for London VCs of
£87,000 (compared to a national median of £28,308). Central government funding in
London is £99,645 (£35,044 national median), indicating that VCs in London are
receiving greater government support than the national average.
At the same time the Mayor of London has set up his own volunteering programmes,
Team London139, and the London Ambassadors volunteer programme (8,000
volunteers) for the Olympics, while 70,000 volunteers have been recruited for a
separate Games Makers volunteer programme for the Olympics. The London
Assembly has raised concerns that the latter two programmes should help deliver
the Olympic legacy of increased employment for east Londoners, particularly those
who had previously been long-tern unemployed, but it was unclear if measures had
been put in place to achieve this140. At the same time the government has launched
its volunteering programme for young people, National Citizen Service 141. It is
unclear how these national and regional volunteering programmes are co-ordinated
and how well they are working in partnership with existing VCS organisations and
their volunteering programmes and opportunities.. It has been suggested that there
should be more support for volunteeringinfrastructure, backed up by better coordination across government to maximise the potential of such programmes142.
The Big Squeeze 2012 showed that preventative VCS services are being
disproportionately cut compared with curative or crisis services, and that this is
expected to continue in 2012-13. It is clear that the sudden and deep cuts in public
sector spending have meant that commissioners have had to make quick decisions
that have favoured short-term solutions, at the risk of producing longer-term
problems which which will cost more to solve in the future.
Responses to the Big Squeeze 2012 suggest that negative impacts are being
experienced more by local VCS organisations than VCS groups working over a wider
area. However, the small numbers in each category reduces the reliability of these
results.
Results suggested that service users of local organisations were experiencing
greater needs, and that these organisations were seeing more demand for services,
funding reductions and service closures than organisations working over a wider
area. They were also more likely to have no free reserves at the end of 2011-12.
This could reflect the fact that more local VCS respondents were funded by local
authorities, which have had large cuts to their budgets, while wider area
organisations were more likely to be funded by the National Lottery, private sector or
income-generating activities.
86
Local VCS organisations were also more likely to state positive benefits from the
Government‟s Localism and Big Society policies, with VCS organisations working
over a larger area more likely to see no benefits of any Government policies for the
communities with which they work. This may reflect the fact that wider area
organisations will face more difficulties gaining funding from all the local authority
areas across which they work, and may also work with minority groups, who may not
benefit from localist or Big Society policies, as they are present within such small
numbers within a single borough or neighbourhood.
Many local organisations expressed concerns about national organisations
competing with them to deliver services in their local area. This reflects the findings
of the NAVCA Chief Officer Survey 2012, which found that competition from national
organisations is a growing problem for local charities and community groups. One
respondent said:
“Commissioning has opened up to the independent sector which means
national organisations are tendering for services in local communities which
they have no knowledge about apart from the information provided in the
tender spec. Their approach is to win the contract for 3 years and then move
on elsewhere. They are extremely skilled in writing tenders and although
encouraged to use local providers to help them deliver services they tend not
to do this.”
The Big Squeeze 2012 results suggest that London‟s VCS organisations are learning
to cope more effectively with the economic challenges to themselves and their
service users since the recession began in the UK in 2008. This reflects the
conclusion of the NAVCA Chief Executive Survey 2012 that uncertainty brought
about by major funding cuts in 2011 is subsiding.
Organisational support needs were diversifying beyond the demand for fundraising
support, while actions that groups were taking to respond to the changes brought
about by the economic and policy climate were becoming more strategic over the
years. This year fewer respondents mentioned unsustainable actions such as
making staff redundant, taking on more volunteers, making efficiency savings and
staff working unpaid or reduced hours. Instead, more respondents answered that
they were developing new business models, diversifying funding sources,
redesigning services, making greater use of ICT or social media and working in
collaboration, not just with other VCS organisations, but also with the private sector,
funders and commissioners.
However, very few of the recommendations from last years‟ survey appeared to have
been implemented across the VCS, funders and policymakers. Across the board,
VCS organisations were still reporting problems with policymakers not valuing the
VCS and the social and environmental benefits that its service provision can bring,
and not assessing the impacts, particularly around equality issues, of their policies.
Funders were still seen as bureaucratic, unaccountable, and averse to working more
closely with other funders, while their funding processes seemed to be moving to
87
create even greater barriers to VCS organisations with the introduction of larger
contracts and payment by results models. Despite this, Big Squeeze respondents
have taken on board the need for greater collaborative and partnership work both
within and between sectors. There was a large increase in the numbers working
informally in partnership or in more formal collaborations, and a much higher number
reporting that they were working to improve their relationships with funders and
commissioners.
Overall there is cause for optimism in this demonstration of the London VCS‟s
flexibility and innovation in continuing to provide services and better meet the needs
of the most disadvantaged Londoners, at a time of reduced resources and higher
demand. However, it is concerning that the Big Squeeze 2012 recorded increasingly
negative impacts of economic and other policies, particularly on the most
disadvantaged Londoners, coupled with continuing high proportions of service
closures, with disproportionate losses to preventative services. This survey‟s findings
estimate a net loss of 22% of funding to the VCS in London in this one year alone.
It is certain from LVSC‟s work demonstrating the total closure of two hundred of
London VCS organisations in this year alone (section 3.4.1) and the reported loss of
so many VCS staff in London evidenced by the Labour Force survey (section 5.1),
that the sector must now be significantly smaller than at its peak in 2008, when
LVSC estimated that there were around 60,000 VCS organisations in London.
However, the different figures for funding loss across London‟s VCS produced by the
different studies informing this report, demonstrate how hard this is to quantify in a
sector that consists of so many unregistered informal community groups, and where
data from Charity Commission returns automatically introduce a two year time lag in
the provision of data and analysis (the NCVO 2012 Civil Society Almanac actually
reports figures from 2009 -10, as a result of these delays). LVSC‟s Big Squeeze
survey and report aims to introduce some more real time indications of what is
happening to the sector in 2012, but this is limited by the number of survey
respondents and the quality of data provided.
Nevertheless, it is hard to see from this year‟s findings how London‟s VCS
organisations can continue to adapt and innovate in order to meet the growing needs
of Londoners, if these financial and policy pressures continue in the years to come.
Policymakers and funders are asked to consider more carefully the implications of a
smaller and less diverse VCS and what this will mean for the most disadvantaged
Londoners, social cohesion and equality. It is encouraging that this year‟s survey
demonstrates how many of London‟s VCS organisations continue to survive to
support their users. However, it is only once they are in an environment where they
can thrive that the full benefits of the sector‟s activities for Londoners can be fully
developed and evidenced.
88
Survey respondents who gave permission to be named in this report included:
Calthorpe Project
The Barons Court Project
Voluntary Action Lewisham
Brockley Tenants' Co-operative Ltd.
The Cranfield Trust
SHARE Community
Barnet Refugee Service
Partnership for Young London
Croydon CAB
Kensington and Chelsea Social Council
Enfield Voluntary Action
Blenheim CDP
St Marks‟ Family Centre
REAP
Centre for Armenian Information & Advice
Ealing Mediation Service
Harrow Mencap
Barnabas Workshops
CommUNITY Barnet
RF Barnet
Newham Monitoring Project
Islington Law Centre
Kingston Churches Action on Homelessness
Urban Partnership Group
Hillside Clubhouse
VCS Learning Solutions CIC
Brent Mind
Greenwich & Lewisham Young People's Theatre
Shepherds Bush Housing Group
Southwark Muslim Women's Association
Volunteer Centre Southwark
Stonewall Housing
Volunteer Centre Kensington & Chelsea
Hounslow Education Business Partnership
MECMAC
WHEAT Mentor Support Trust
Third Age Foundation
Ellingham Employment
Streetvibes Youth
Waltham Forest Community Credit Union
Carers Support (Bexley)
Laburnum Boat Club
89
Harrow Samaritans
Revolving Doors Agency
London Community Resource Network
The Citizens Trust
Royal Medical Benevolent Fund
Central & Cecil
African Health Policy Network
Brent BASIS project
Addiction Support and Care Agency
Toynbee Hall
The Children's Society
YouthNet
Kids Can Achieve
Paddington Arts
Eco-Actif Services CIC
Elephant Jobs
Mousetrap Theatre Projects
IROKO Theatre Company
Ed-bus
Black Environment Network
London Civic Forum
Destiny Enterprise Solutions CIC
Red Kite Learning
Belvedere Community Forum
Ealing CVS
DASL
Crisis
Independent Living Alternatives
Inspire!
Acton Community Forum
Lasa
Early Years Network Tower Hamlets
Kairos in Soho
Emmanuel Youth & Community Centre
Newlon Fusion
Victim Support London
The Consortium of LGBT VCOs
British Institute of Human RIghts
Ilays Hounslow
Brent Private Tenants Rights Group
Race on the Agenda
CALM (Campaign Against Living Miserably)
Woman's Trust
Spare Tyre
The Nia Project
Play Association Tower Hamlets (PATH)
Core Arts
Southall Day Centre
Walworth Garden Farm
999 Club
90
Mary Ward Legal Centre
Afro-Asian Advisory Service
Cabinda Community Association
African Physical Training Organisation (APTO)
Talking Matters Wellbeing Centre
Boznia Herzegovina Community Advice Centre Brent
Penrose
Zacchaeus 2000 Trust
Cancerkin (The Royal Free Cancerkin Breast Cancer Trust Ltd)
Camden Federation of Private Tenants
Headliners (UK)
Kith & Kids
Brook London
HACT
National Pensioners Convention, NPC
Step Up
Casa de la Salud HIspano Americana-CASAHA
People Empowering People
15billion
My Voice London
Barnet Voice for Mental Health
South London CVS Partnership
Inclusion London
Community Development Network London
Contact a Family
Southwark Mediation Centre
Alone in London
Asylum Aid
Standing Together Against Domestic Violence
Mosaada Centre for Single Women
AdviceUK
HACAN Clear Skies (Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise)
Voluntary Action Westminster
Voluntary Action Waltham Forest
Thank you all, and also all the other organisations and individual project and service
managers who took the time to complete the survey. We hope that allowing you to
respond confidentially has helped more people to provide detailed answers to the
questions, during what this report shows, is a difficult and uncertain policy and
funding climate.
91
Acknowledgements
Our respondents
We would like to express our sincerest thanks to all the London VCS groups who
responded to this year‟s Big Squeeze survey. We are very grateful that you took the
time to share some of your expertise and tell us some of the issues you are facing,
as we realise that for most organisations funds are stretched and staff and
volunteers are busier than ever.
Our partners
Secondly we would like to thank our partners, particularly:
Kate Burls and Chloe Roach from London Civic Forum – for marketing and
communication support
Gaynor Humphries and Catherine McLoughlin from London funders – for strategic
advice, contacts, and additional support
Paul Treloar from Lasa for expert advice and input
LVSC
This report was written by Alison Blackwood
Many thanks to other members of staff who supported the development of the
survey, marketing and communications, and final analysis:
Tim Brogden
Steve Kerr
Sandra van der Feen
Michelle Curtis
Chris Taylor
Lin Gillians
Additional telephone support for the survey was provided by:
Chris Taylor and Sue Robson
92
LVSC is the collaborative leader of London's voluntary and
community sector. We support London's voluntary and community
organisations to improve the lives of Londoners.
What we do
The voluntary and community sector (VCS) makes a huge contribution to the lives of
Londoners, providing a range of services and support to the capital's diverse
communities.
LVSC brings together London's voluntary and community sector organisations to
learn and share best practice and to create a co-ordinated voice to influence policy
makers on issues affecting Londoners.
LVSC's vision is of a vibrant and sustainable city where the lives of Londoners are
enhanced through voluntary and community action.
Our aims
To be a central resource for knowledge and policy for the London voluntary and
community sector;
To act as a collaborative leader for London's voluntary and community sector;
To enable the voluntary and community sector to best deliver for Londoners.
London Voluntary Service Council (LVSC) is the collaborative leader for the VCS in
London. We bring together London VCS organisations to learn and share best
practice and to create a co-ordinated voice to influence policy makers and statutory
partners. We provide up-to-date support services for VCS groups around their
business, policy analysis and influence and training for those working in the sector.
Our strategic objectives are to:
be a central resource for knowledge and policy for London VCS;
act as a collaborative leader for London‟s voluntary and community sector; and
enable the voluntary and community sector to best deliver for Londoners.
Poverty, equality, health and climate change are the crosscutting themes throughout
all of our work and this report specifically addresses the issues in London around the
first three, with implications for the last
93
Compiled by Alex Whinnom, Director, Greater Manchester Centre for Voluntary Organisation, St Thomas Centre, Ardwick Green
North, Manchester M12 6FZ alex.whinnom@gmcvo.org.uk 0161 277 100
City
Birmingham
(BVSC)
Bristol
(Voscur)
Greater
Manchester
(GMCVO)
Date of
data
Feb
2012
March
2012
March
2012
Sample
size
1,158
44
337
Services cut
Communities most affected
Trends
Impact
50% had cut services
themselves; of these 60%
had cut services by more
than 40%. 61% of
36% report cuts to services
for children and young
people; 30% to older people;
high impact also reported on
disabled people and people
with long term conditions.
Women and people from
ethnic minorities also cited.
55% reported increased
demand for services
which cannot be met.
81% were confident
they could sustain their
services for the next
year, compared with
58% for three years
and 45% for five years.
Projected cuts to
generalist advice
services expected to
have impact on
benefits up-take
(analysis pending).
56% report cuts to services
for young people; 38% older
people; 25% disabled people.
Full equalities impact
analysis pending.
80% of groups reported
increased demand for
their remaining services,
but only 41% were able
to meet this demand.
36% hope to continue to
do so and 66% were
aware of new needs
emerging.
Analysis pending
50% report cuts to services
for young people; 35% older
people; 33% disabled people.
Full equalities impact
analysis pending.
73% of groups reported
increased demand for
their remaining services
but only 42% were able
to meet this demand and
only 32% hoped to
continue to do so, whilst
54% were aware of new
needs emerging.
Analysis pending.
Separate evidence of
increase in child
poverty (Save the
Children); anecdotal
evidence of rise in food
poverty amongst
working poor; increase
in homelessness. No
correlation yet proved.
services affected by
cuts.
39% had cut services
themselves since April 2011
and 78% knew of other
organisations that had done
so
56% had cut services
themselves since April 2011
and 70% knew of other
organisations which had
done so
City
Date of
data
Leeds
(VAL)
Nov
2011
Liverpool
(LCVS)
London
(LVSC)
Dec
2011
July
2011
Sample
size
Services cut
78
43% had cut services, and
43% had reduced the
number of users or
communities worked with.
91
16.5% or organisations had
no cuts to services; 35%
had cuts of 10% - 20%;
37% had cuts of 20%-50%;
11.5% had cuts 60%-100%
120
51% had cut services
2010/11, 14% of services
cut were advice services,
12% health or care, 9%
youth and 3% employment
Communities most affected
Trends
Impact
26% had become more
reliant on volunteers
No clear trends as all
communities affected; loss of
access to support into
employment, social support
for people with learning
difficulties, older people and
mental health service users,
Children and young people,
particularly, but also people
from ethnic minorities and
refugees, disabled
people, older people, LGBT
people and women
Retraction from nonstatutory service
provision and reduction
in preventative services
to those vulnerable
people. Some protection
for services to children.
Generally thought that
welfare reform will
have greater adverse
impact on vulnerable
people and
communities than cuts.
Clear evidence that
child poverty,
inequality and rough
sleeping are
54% expected more
increasing (although
services to close in
cannot prove a direct
2011-12. 86% reported correlation with public
increase in demand.
spending cuts). N.
LVSC found advice
London evidence of a
services and
rise in mental health
preventative health and problems. Changes to
care services were
Local Housing
being disproportionately Allowance and
cut
Universal Credit cap
will have a
disproportionately
negative impact in the
capital, because of
higher housing costs.
95
City
Date of
data
Newcastle
(Newcastle CVS)
Feb
2012
Nottingham
(NCVS)
Survey
to be
carried
out April
2012
Sheffield
(VAS)
July
2011
Update
planned
June
2012
Sample
size
53
30
Services cut
Communities most affected
Trends
Impact
59% had lost funding. 45%
expect to close a service
and 47% to reduce the
number of beneficiaries
supported.
Children and young
people‟s organisations; and
refugee and asylum seeker
groups seem to have had
disproportionate cuts. Also
women‟s organisations –
interviewed ten in Feb 2012
and most had reduced
funding and had no capacity
for networking and
campaigning work
Increase in rough
sleeping – people
offered blankets.
57% report increased
Growing demand on
demand. 74% plan to
housing and debt
increase their use of
advice sessions;
volunteers. 57%
queuing starting at
currently using reserves
7am for an advice
(was 15% July 2009)
session at 9am. More
Council placing larger
people presenting at
contracts which appear
mental health groups
to disenfranchise small,
with much greater
local groups.
needs (medium to
severe mental health
distress)
Services most affected are
health cut by 46% and
advice 35%.
Children and young people
50%; disabled people 25%;
women, people from ethnic
minorities and older people
also badly affected.
Over half of
organisations expect the
situation to further
deteriorate in the next 12
months and over a third
say that closure is
possible
96
Lasa
London Funders
Women‟s Resource Centre,
Greater London Volunteering
Volunteer Centre Kensington and
Chelsea
Stonewall Housing
London Community Resource Centre
London Civic Forum
Children England
ROTA
HEAR
City Bridge Trust
Ethical Property Foundation
Trust for London
False Economy
NAVCA
97
1
Available at http://www.lvsc.org.uk/campaigns/big-squeeze/big-squeeze-2009.aspx [13th July 2012]
Available at http://www.lvsc.org.uk/campaigns/big-squeeze/big-squeeze-2010.aspx [13th July 2012]
3
th
Available at http://www.lvsc.org.uk/media/52273/big%20squeeze%203%20final%20report.pdf [13 July 2012]
4
Comprising Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham and Sheffield. Available
th
at http://www.corecities.com/ [13 July 2012]
5
Comprising East, East Midlands, South East, South West, North East, North West, West Midlands Yorkshire &
th
Humber. Available at http://www.regionalvoices.net/ [13 July 2012]
6
Bank of England (2012) Inflation Report, May 2012. London: Bank of England
7
Lundberg O. (2009) How do welfare policies contribute to the reduction of health inequalities? Eurohealth
15(3):24-7.
8
Institute of Health Equity (2012) The impact of the economic downturn and policy changes on health inequalities
in London. London: University College London
9
HM Treasury (2012) Budget 2012. London: The Stationary Office, HM Government.
10
Available at: http://www.tuc.org.uk/economy/tuc-20481-f0.cfm [12th July 2012]
11
Available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jun/12/city-cost-of-living-2012-tokyo [12th July
2012]
12
Available at http://www.ifs.org.uk/budgets/gb2012/gb2012.pdf [13th July 2012]
13
Kaplan G. (2012) Economic crises: some thoughts on why, when and where they (might) matter for health - a
tale of three countries. Social Science & Medicine 74(5):643-6
14
Available at http://www.londonspovertyprofile.org.uk/indicators/topics/inequality/income-property-and-financialth
inequality/ [12 July 2012]
15
Browne J, Kenway P, Phillips D. (2010) Poverty and the impact of tax and benefit changes in London. London:
New Policy Institute & Institiute for Fiscal Studies
16
Available at http://www.londonspovertyprofile.org.uk/indicators/topics/income-poverty/londons-poverty-rate/
th
[12 July 2012]
17
Available at http://www.londonspovertyprofile.org.uk/indicators/topics/income-poverty/child-and-adult-povertyth
and-work/ [12 July 2012]
18
GLA Economics (2011) A Fairer London: The 2011 Living Wage in London. London: Greater London Authority.
19
London Health Commission (2011) Fair London, Healthy Londoners. London: Greater London Authority, May
2011
20
London Debt Strategy Group (2011) Treading Water. London: Greater London Authority
21
Office for National Statistics. (2012) A07 Regional summary of labour market headline indicators: Headline
estimates for January to March 2012. london: ONS
22
MacInnes T, Parekh A, Kenway P. (2010) London's poverty profile: reporting on the recession. London: New
Policy Institute.
23
ibid
24
Lee N, Wright J. (2011) Off the Map? The Geography of NEETs. London: The Work Foundation
25
Crawford C, Duckworth K, Vignoles A, Wyness G (2011) Young people‟s education and labour market choices
aged 16/17 to 18/19. London: Department for Education.
26
th
Available at http://www.londonspovertyprofile.org.uk/key-facts/ [12 July 20120]
27
Available at http://www.londonspovertyprofile.org.uk/indicators/topics/work-and-worklessness/lone-parentth
employment-rates/ [12 July 2012]
28
Available at http://www.londonspovertyprofile.org.uk/indicators/topics/work-and-worklessness/worklessnessth
by-gender-and-ethnicity/ [12 July 2012]
29
Available at http://www.londonspovertyprofile.org.uk/indicators/topics/work-and-worklessness/worklessnessth
by-disability-status/ [12 July 2012]
30
Available at http://lseo.org.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/Scorecard_v3.9.pdf [12th July 2012]
31
Centre for Economic & Social Inclusion (2011) Making work pay in London under Universal Credit: A report for
London Councils. London: Centre for Economic & Social Inclusion.
32
Department for Work & Pensions (2011) Conditionality measures in the 2011 Welfare Reform Bill. London: The
Stationary Office, HM Government
33
TUC (2011) TUC reveals it's harder to find a job in the Eastern half of London than the West. London: TUC.
34
Available at http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/development/think-tank-calls-for-london-welfarechanges/6521743.article [17th July 2012]
35
McCarvill, P., Gaffney D. & Griffith, M. (2012) Affordable capital? Housing in London. London: IPPR
36
Crewe D. (2007) The Tenant's Dilemma. Crosby, Formby & District CAB.
37
National Housing Federation (2010) Home Truths 2010: Why investment in affordable housing matters,
London. London: National Housing Federation
38
Shelter (2011)1 in 4 London children overcrowded. London: Shelter
39
MacInnes T, Parekh A, Kenway P. (2011) London's Poverty Profile 2011. London:Trust for London / New
Policy Institute.
40
Rogers S. (2012) Homelessness jumps by 14% in a year. The Guardian 2012 Mar 8.
41
Available at http://www.broadwaylondon.org/CHAIN/Reports/S2H_201112.pdf [12th July 2012]
2
98
42
Shelter (2011) The impact of welfare reform bill measures on affordability for low income private renting
families. London: Shelter.
43
Navigant Consulting (2011) Does the Cap fit? An Analysis of the Impact of Welfare Reform in London: A
research report commissioned by London Councils. London: London Councils.
44
Navigant Consulting (2011) Does the Cap fit? An Analysis of the Impact of Welfare Reform in London: A
research report commissioned by London Councils. London: London Councils.
45
Fenton A. (2011) Housing benefit reform and the spatial segregation of low-income households in London.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Centre for Housing & Planning Research.
46
Pawson H. (2011)Welfare reform and social housing. York: HQN
47
McCarvill, P., Gaffney D. & Griffith, M. (2012) Affordable capital? Housing in London. London: IPPR
48
Available at http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/press-releases/moj/royal-assent-for-legal-aid,-sentencing-andth
punishment-of-offenders-bill [12 July 2012]
49
th
Available at http://www.lasa.org.uk/news/detail/advice-funding-in-budget-2012-falls-short/ [13 July 2012]
50
Bawden, F. and Hynes, S. (2012) London Advice Watch. London: Legal Advice Group & Trust for London
51
th
Available at http://www.dh.gov.uk/health/2012/06/act-explained/ [13 July 2012]
52
Timms, N. (2012) Never Again: the story of the Health & Social Care Act 2012. London: King‟s Fund
53
Available at http://www.2020selection.co.uk/clinical-commissioning-groups.asp [13th July 2012]
54
Available at
http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/current_projects/the_health_and_social_care_bill/reforming_the_health_bill/index.ht
ml[13th July 2012]
55
th
Available at http://www.dh.gov.uk/health/2012/05/transition-register/ [13 July 2012]
56
Available at http://www.lhib.org.uk/about [13th July 2012]
57
Institute of Health Equity (2012) The impact of the economic downturn and policy changes on health
inequalities in London. London: University College London
58
Available at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmeduc/850/85002.htm [13th July
2012]
59
Available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10161371 [13th July 2012]
60
Available at http://www.aoc.co.uk/en/newsroom/aoc_news_releases.cfm/id/8960F416-A1C3-4EC298555D6DD0DA21D8 [13th July 2012]
61
th
Available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/09/university-applicants-2012-ucas#data [13
July 2012]
62
Institute of Health Equity (2012) The impact of the economic downturn and policy changes on health
inequalities in London. London: University College London
63
Anderson, P. , McDaid, D., Basu, S. & Stuckler, D. (2011) Impact of economic crises on mental health.
Copenhagen: World Health Organisation European Office.
64
Hogarth T, Owen D, Gambin L, Hasluck C, Lyonette C, Casey B (2009) The equality impacts of the current
recession. Research report 47. Manchester: Equality & Human Rights Commission.
65
Fairchild R (2012) London crime – A national picture: Changes over the twelve months to September 2011.
Intelligence Briefing 2012–02. London: Greater London Authority.
66
Greater London Authority (2009) Time for action. Update report. London: Greater London Authority.
67
Victim support analysis based on Home Office research, Development and Statistics Directorate and BRMB
((2011) Social Research British Crime Survey: 2010-11. Colchester, Essex, UK: Victim Support
68
Available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/13/contents/enacted [13th July 2012]
69
Available at http://www.london.gov.uk/policing [13th July 2012]
70
Available here http://www.victimsupport.org/About-us/Policy-andresearch/~/media/Files/Publications/ResearchReports/VSA%20reports/Listening%20and%20learning%20th
%20London [13 July 2012]
71
th
Available at http://www.vahs.org.uk/2012/04/coalition-gosling/ [13 July 2012]
72
th
Available at http://www.vahs.org.uk/2012/01/rochester-zimmeck-review-2011/ [13 July 2012]
73
Available at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmpubadm/902/902.pdf [13th july
2012]
74
Available here http://www.civilexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/THE-BIG-SOCIETY-AUDIT2012_Civil-Exchangefinal.pdf [13th July 2012]
75
Available at http://www.communities.gov.uk/news/planningandbuilding/2126303 [13th July 2012]
76
See http://www.london.gov.uk/business-economy/working-partnership/lep/about [13th July 2012]
77
Parvin, P. (2009) Against Localism: Does Decentralising Power to Communities Fail Minorities? The Political
Quarterly 80 (3) pp.351 - 360
78
Available at http://www.theglasshouse.org.uk/blog-entry/_/community-rights-made-real-what-will-the-localismth
act-mean-for-communities/41/ [13 July 2012]
79
Available at http://files.openpublicservices.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/OpenPublicServices-WhitePaper.pdf [13th July
2012]
80
Available at http://files.openpublicservices.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/HMG_OpenPublicServices_web.pdf [13th July
2012],
81
Available at http://www.lvsc.org.uk/campaigns/work-programme-in-london.aspx [17th July 2012]
82
Available at http://www.ifs.org.uk/budgets/gb2012/gb2012.pdf [13th July 2012]
99
83
London Assembly Economic, Culture & Sport Committee (2011) The Mayor‟s role in economic development.
London: Greater London Authority
84
Available at http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/localgovernment/bestvaluestatguidance [17th july
2012}
85
Available at http://www.ifs.org.uk/budgets/gb2012/gb2012.pdf [13th July 2012]
86
Available at http://www.lvsc.org.uk/media/116051/cuts%20report%20april%202011%20th
%20march%202012.doc [13 July 2012]
87
Available at http://falseeconomy.org.uk/blog/exclusive-more-than-2000-charities-and-community-groups-faceth
cuts/ [July 13 2012]
88
Available at
http://www.tsrc.ac.uk/NewsandEvents/dependenceofthirdsectoronpublicfunding/tabid/742/Default.aspx [15th July
2012]
89
th
Available at http://voluntarysectorcuts.org.uk/ [15 July 2012]
90
Available at http://falseeconomy.org.uk/blog/exclusive-more-than-2000-charities-and-community-groups-facecuts [15th July 2012]
91
NCVO (2011) Counting the Cuts. London; NCVO
92
ACEVO (2012) Cuts to the Third sector: What can we learn from Transition Fund applications? London:
ACEVO
93
Available at http://www.lvsc.org.uk/media/116051/cuts%20report%20april%202011%20th
%20march%202012.doc [15 July 2012]
94
Available at
http://www.tsrc.ac.uk/NewsandEvents/dependenceofthirdsectoronpublicfunding/tabid/742/Default.aspx [15th July
2012]
95
Community Matters (2011) Membership survey 2010-11 London: Community Matters
96
Available at http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/news/Article/1080503/charities-low-reserves-applying-grantsth
foundations-say/ [15 July 2012]
97
Available at http://www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/news/people-hr-employment/charity-workforce-shrinks-nearly-9 [15th
July 2012]
98
Justice for All (2012) Advice needs: What local advice charities need to continue serving their communities.
London: Justice for All
99
London Debt Strategy Advisory Group (2011) Capitalise London: Greater London Authority
100
Trust for London (2012) London Advice Watch London: Trust for London.
101
National Children‟s Bureau (2011) The Ripple Effect. London: NCB
102
Unite (2011) Freedom of Information request Analysis. London: Unite
103
Available at http://www.londonfunders.org.uk/what-we-do/funding-landscape-2012/childrens-and-youngpeoples-services [15th July 2012]
104
Institute of Health Equity (2012) The impact of the economic downturn and policy changes on health
inequalities in London. London: University College London
105
van den Berg GJ, Lindeboom M, Lopez M (2009) Inequality in individual mortality and economic conditions
earlier in life. Social Science & Medicine, 69 (9): 1360–7.
106
Institute of Health Equity (2012) The impact of the economic downturn and policy changes on health
inequalities in London. London: University College London
107
Newcastle Council for Voluntary Service & community Action on Health (2012) Here‟s Looking at You: working
with a different NHS. Newcastle: Newcastle Council for voluntary Service.
108
Available at http://www.ncvovol.org.uk/sites/default/files/The_Voluntary_Sector_in_Health_Kings_Fund_and_NCVO.pdf [15th July 2012]
109
Age UK London & Greater London Forum for the Elderly (2011) Don‟t cut care in London. London: Age UKL
London
110
Available at
http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_133438.pd
f [15th July 2012]
111
Available at http://www.drugscope.org.uk/Media/Press+office/pressreleases/dual-diagnosis-joint-paper [15th
July 2012]
112
Drugscope (2011) The impact of cuts on young people‟s drug and alcohol services. London: Drugscope
113
th
London Skills & Employment Observatory (2012). Available at http://lseo.org.uk/ (15 July 2012]
114
Available at http://www.cesi.org.uk/sites/default/files/event_downloads/ACEVO_report.pdf [15th July 2012]
115
Available at http://www.lvsc.org.uk/media/57778/fair%20chance%20to%20work%20%20vcs%20experiences%20of%20work%20programme%20in%20london%20-%20lvsc%20oct%202011.pdf
th
[15 July 2012]
116
Available at http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/bulletin/third_sector_daily_bulletin/article/1129261/most-charity-workth
programme-subcontractors-have-no-client-referrals/?DCMP=EMC-CONThirdSectorDaily [15 July 2012]
117
Available at http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/Management/article/1131555/st-mungos-leaves-work-programmeth
failing-receive-referrals/ [15 july 2012]
118
Available at http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/phillip-blond-leave-the-profit-motive-out-inthe-cold-7821005.html [16th July 2012]
119
Available at http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/ih2011-2012/ihr9.pdf [15th July 2012]
100
120
th
Available at http://www.womeninlondon.org.uk/women-in-london-directory-of-groups/ [15 July 2012]
th
Available at http://www.trustforlondon.org.uk/Building%20Our%20Futures.pdf [15 July 2012]
122
The London LGBT Voluntary and Community Sector Almanac (2011) Kairos in Soho).
123
Victim Support Advocates Project (2012) Listening and learning: improving support for victims in London.
London: Victim Support.
124
Inclusion London (2012) A matter of survival… funding experiences for London‟s deaf and disabled
organisations. London: Inclusion London
125
Available at http://www.rota.org.uk/content/recession-report-june-2009 [15th July 2012]
126
Trust For London & Northern Rock Foundation (2012) Measuring the impact of cuts in public expenditure on
the provision of service to prevent violence against women and girls. London: Trust for London
127
NAVCA (2012) Chief Officer Survey 2012. Sheffield: NAVCA
128
Available at http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/Policy_and_Politics/article/1130489/Victim-Support-campaignsth
against-major-Ministry-Justice-policy/ [15 July 2012]
129
Anderson P, McDaid D, Basu S, Stuckler D (2011) Impact of economic crises on mental health. Copenhagen:
World Health Organization European Office.
130
th
Mayor‟s Office for Policing 7 Crime (2012) Monthly Report to Police and Crime Committee 8 March 2012.
London: Greater London Authority.
131
Home Office (2011) An overview of recorded crimes and arrests resulting from disorder events in august.
London: The Stationary Office.
132
Red Ochre (2012) When the dust settles: an update. London: Clinks
133
Homeless Link (2012) Homeless Watch: Survey of Needs and Provision 2012. London: Homeless Link
134
Crisis (2012) Crisis Policy Briefing: Housing Benefit cuts. London: Crisis
135
Available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jun/25/breadline-britain-growth-food-parcels [15th July
2012]
136
London Assembly, Health and Public Services Committee (2012) In from the cold? Tackling fuel poverty in
London. London: Greater London Authority.
137
Department of Communities & Local Government (2011) citizenship survey 2010-11. London: The Statiotnary
Office, HM Government.
138
Institute of Volunteering Research (2012) volunteering England Annual Memebership Return 2010-11.
London: IVR
139
Available at http://www.london.gov.uk/teamlondon [15th July 2012]
140
Available at
http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/110712%20Skills%20and%20employment%20report%20th
%20final_0.pdf [15 July 2012]
141
th
Available at http://nationalcitizenservice.direct.gov.uk/ [15 July 2012]
142142
Civil Exchange (2012) The Big Society Audit 2012. London: Civil Exchange.
121
101