Member News
By Dominic Gover - 5th October 2010
ePolitix.com reports from a Charities Aid Foundation fringe event in which charities expressed their concerns over the withdrawal of government funding and questioned the ability of the big society to fill in the gaps.
The meeting was a forum for charity representatives to discuss what the big society meant for the way in which services would be delivered to users in the age of austerity.
Opening the meeting, David Brindle, public services editor for The Guardian, said there was anxiety at the prospect of big society. Would it promote freedom, or would it undermine the sector's stability and drive smaller charities to the wall?
In response, George Freeman MP said 'we're all in this together.' He stated that the austerity programme was to ' sort out the mess' and insisted that nobody 'wanted to be in that position.'
Freeman acknowledged there was confusion over what the big society meant for training, development and standards in the charity sector. He said that an interesting thing about the big society was that it was just a political term for a traditional ethos in British culture.
The big society encompassed a Conservative ethic which stated that society was different from the state, Freeman said, adding that it was also a way to deal with crisis of civics, identity and values.
He added that these in combination could create community consciousness. 'People do step in when state fails and that people can do things,' he said.
Dr John Low, chief executive of Charities Aid Foundation, said that confidence was low as committed charities faced up to uncertainty.
He stated that charities did not have huge reserves to call upon because income was spent on output in the sector. But he added he was confident the sector could meet the new challenges it faced.
Low stated that people had abdicated 'human responsibilities' because of expectations about the state as a provider, 'so if that's overturned it will be good'. But he queried how the government would orchestrate the big society and suggested that it was in essence unrelated to the third sector.
Joe Saxton, representing nfpSynergy, compared the sector to a baby seal which was distraught at the withdrawal of maternal milk after 15 years of plenty in the form of state funding.
He stated that charities had so far weathered the recession well. He added that charities were not the only affected bodies, observing that quangos were being 'obliterated' by the government.
'It doesn't matter if the cat is black of white, as long as it gets the mouse,' he said, calling for charities to focus on delivery to secure their survival.
The Charity Commission’s Sam Younger cited a study which suggested 85 per cent of charities were optimistic about the future. He said independence from state funding was an important factor in this.
He added that charities could take the lead and define the big society. 'It is what people make of it,' he said.
But he added that the speed of the proposed cuts was disturbing to charities.
Mark Goldring of MENCAP said the forthcoming spending review would hit services which were already being squeezed. He predicted the situation would deteriorate and called for more time to allow charities to make new plans.
Another audience member queried the high levels of spending by some charities on political lobbying. He suggested the cash would be better spent on service users.
In response, Younger said that independent charities were free to decide how best to spend their resources. He said that the big society had the potential to become a distraction from charities' core activities.
Saxton said that he was impressed at how few charities, only 33 per cent, had been forced to dip into reserves to survive the recession. 'So where is the crisis? Charities should live on the reserves, as they are there for a rainy day and this is the rainy day,' he said.
In response, Younger said that 80 per cent of charities have an annual turnover of under £10,000 and so have no reserves.
This point was echoed by Ann Blackmore of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. She said that one third of charities have zero reserves.
Freeman said cuts should be focused on bureaucracy and not front line services. He called on local councils to make tough but responsible decisions. He stated that charities which focused upon delivery could safeguard themselves.
Sally Rendall of Changing Faces argued that effective lobbying could act as prevention which meant there was no need later for extra spending later to cure problems.
Mike Martin of NAVCA said that charities were being 'disproportionately hammered' in Croydon, Hackney and Northamptonshire. He feared that councils would target charities with big cuts which David Cameron opposed, but which were already underway.
Councillor David Milligan of Ealing acknowledged it was tempting for councils to make such cuts. He suggested that charities should not come to rely on the state for core funding.
Freeman said one problem was that certain charities had become too large and were unaccountable. However, he insisted the government would not be swayed in its reforms by powerful charities.
Saxton said that he believed that fundraising could enable charities to raise the required funds. He said that there was no limit to the amount that could be created in this way. He predicted the fruits of such an approach would show in five to ten years time.
Low branded a as 'scandal' the current gift aid system, which he said was hopelessly out of date and hit charitable giving.
He added that the state must not abandon its statutory duties during the adverse economic climate. Taxpayers reasonably expect the state to fulfil its role, he said.
Freeman admitted that the big society blurs the boundary between state and community. He said the government hoped to help foster community spirit in the way that services were provided
Younger responded that more debate was required. He added that state funding was a perfectly legitimate source of revenue for charities.
Freeman said the big society would overturn over regulation of activity in public space. This would require a new regulatory framework. 'We will do it in a way which is more fulfilling and leave the public sector to do what it does best,' he said.
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.