Big Society to blame for failing charities says Labour MP

News

Big Society to blame for failing charities says Labour MP 8

Governance | Niki May Young | 12 Jan 2011

Labour MP Graham Jones has blamed the coalition’s Big Society agenda for the funding problems faced by a charity in his constituency.

Home-Start Hyndburn, which relies entirely on grants from East Lancashire PCT and local authorities, now faces collapse after its £93,000 of funding was cut following the spending review. The charity is now appealing to local businesses to invest in the charity, which promotes the welfare of families with young children and provides support to prevent family breakdown in its local area.

Jones, who is MP for Haslingden & Hyndburn, used the case as the centrepiece of his latest blog entitled Big Society collapsing where he criticised the effects the budget cuts are having on the sector:

“There was never any doubt that cutting the government budget equated to huge cuts in the voluntary and charitable sectors,” he said. “Home-Start as an organisation helps families with young children - people who will be in most need as the Tory-led government’s austerity bites.

“When Mervyn King was critical of Osborne and Cameron, he didn't need to just confine his comments to the economy, he could have extended his critique all the way up to Cameron's own flagship idea, his Big Society,” he added.

Place a comment

Carl Allen
14 Jan 2011

Notions that the sector is over-reliant on government grants miss the point that government is reliant and confident that the sector does deliver grant/contract funded discretionary services effectively.

But when discretionary funding is not generally available,the usual reality is that the sector does not agree within itself what user services must survive on the limited funding available and what user services will not receive discretionary funding.

[Reply]

Carl Allen
14 Jan 2011

That good explanation appears to leave a dilemma for the public sector ... no matter the choice they make on the use of limited resources, some users will suffer.

On reflection, what then becomes of spend to save on present social issues which inevitably becomes economic burdens later?

[Reply]

Chris
14 Jan 2011

The sector as a whole has become over dependent on government grants, and this is an example of making that choice.

Saying that taking government funding is a 'choice' may sound harsh, but that's what it is. I wouldn't necessarily criticise that, as in this case it has certainly helped Home Start to deliver more public benefit than it would otherwise have been able to do in the same kind of timescale.

However, relying on that funding opens trustees up to political risk: changes of government don't happen every day, but when they do, funding is clearly at risk especially on things which don't fit an obvious political expediency or indeed the priorities of the new government.

Home Start is a fairly extreme case, being almost wholly reliant on government grants. There's an argument that the risk being taken on in that model is verging on the unacceptable unless there is a robust plan in place to respond to this very type of scenario (that is, one that does not rely on pleas of being a special case).

[Reply]

John McCrank
13 Jan 2011

The fact is since the government introduced SLA's and contracts for charities to deliver services allowing them and councils to stop providing the services themselves closing departments and getting rid of staff to save money.

They are now stopping funding these charities because they need to save money to fund government and council services. In effect distancing themselves from once again failing the poorest and least able in our society and ensuring the wealthy gain.

[Reply]

Fenris
13 Jan 2011

No contradiction. Home start is a charity, not a government funded scheme. If Jay Kennedy believes it is important enough to be funded by government via taxationn then go out and convince government. If Home Start remains a charity then it is up to individuals to decide if they want to donate.

[Reply]

Carl Allen
12 Jan 2011

Is there a contradiction or dilemma in what you two have said?

[Reply]

Fenris
12 Jan 2011

Charities need to learn that contributions to their cause are supposed to be voluntary. If the public don't want to support them then they deserve to go to the wall.

Gonvernment needs to learn that using public funding to support charities ISN'T charity, it is TAXATION.

This government appears to realise that, and is committed to reducing taxation. Labour seems to be rooted in the past of high tax and spend that got us into this finacial mess. Good job they're gone.

[Reply]

Jay Kennedy
Head of Policy
Directory of Social Change
12 Jan 2011

Cutting funding for Home Starts is unbelieveably short-sighted. They help families under stress - particularly with young children - to get through difficult times, making maximum use of well-trained local volunteers. Often this help is for those families who don't fit neatly into any kind of welfare bracket. Purely in practical effiency terms its value for money, because it helps prevent family problems getting worse. These short-sighted cuts will result in longer term costs to local agencies - things like school attendance, health problems, and even child protection issues requiring the involvment of social services. To say nothing of the fact that many families won't get the help they need.

[Reply]

Comments

[Cancel] | Reply to:

Name *

Email *

Organisation

Job Title

Comments *

Verification *

* Please read our Community Standards

Close »

Community Standards

The civilsociety.co.uk community and comments board is intended as a platform for informed and civilised debate.

We hope to encourage a broad range of views, however, there are standards that we expect commentators to uphold. We reserve the right to delete or amend any comments that do not adhere to these standards.

We welcome:

Robust but respectful debate
Strongly held opinions
Intelligent relevant discussion
The sharing of relevant experiences
New participants

We will not publish:

Rude, threatening, offensive, obscene or abusive language, or links to such material
Links to commercial organisations or spam postings. The comments board is not an advertising platform
The posting of contact details for yourself or others
Comments intended for malicious purpose or mindless abuse
Comments purporting to be from another person or organisation under false pretences
Gratuitous criticism, commentary or self-promotion
Any material which breaches copyright or privacy laws, or could be considered libellous
The use of the comments board for the pursuit or extension of personal disputes

Be aware:

Views expressed on the comments board are left at users’ discretion and are in no way views held or supported by Civil Society Media
Comments left by others may not be accurate, do not rely on them as fact
You may be misunderstood - sarcasm and humour can easily be taken out of context, try to be clear

Please:

Enjoy the opportunity to express your opinion and respect the right of others to express theirs
Confine your remarks to issues rather than personalities

Together we can keep our community a polite, respectful and intelligent platform for discussion.