By Jaimie Kaffash
04 September 2009
Reducing the funding given to the third sector will ‘spell disaster’, according to the National Council for Voluntary Organisations.
The NCVO, which is an umbrella organisation of charities across the UK, released its report, The state and the voluntary sector, today. It said that the £12bn given to the third sector by government – which amounts to 2% of expenditure on public services – could be an ‘easy target’ for cuts. It warned that 25,000 organisations receive 75% of their funding from statutory sources and any cut would have ‘catastrophic consequences for the wellbeing of communities.
It singled out social care, employment and training, law and advocacy and housing as areas that would be particularly affected by a reduction in third sector service provision.
Karl Wilding, head of research at the NCVO, told Public Finance: ‘In the past, cutting third sector funding has been the easy option. Sometimes voluntary organisations are least able to complain. Even if services were moved over to the public sector, the voluntary sector’s expertise means it can provide better services at a cheaper price.’
He added that the services most likely to be cut were ones that statutory bodies are not required to provide. ‘These include youth services – authorities are not compelled to provide them, but they make quite a difference to the quality of life,’ he said. ‘The worry overall is that some social services will stop being provided full stop and those users will be left in the lurch.’
James Cathcart, chief executive of the British Youth Council, told PF: ‘We fear that changes to our funding relationships with the national and local public sector commissioning process, indeed the termination of some of them, could adversely affect the quality and level of established practice.
‘It’s not always a case of either the state or voluntary sector providing a service. In our experience some of the best practice developed in recent years derives from a mutually dependent and beneficial relationship between the two.’
Phil Collis, project manager of TLC Care Services, which provides services for disabled people, said: ‘If our contracts were removed it would leave stroke victims in those boroughs unable to access the high quality care and support they need once they have been discharged from hospital care.’
04 September 2009
Reducing the funding given to the third sector will ‘spell disaster’, according to the National Council for Voluntary Organisations.
The NCVO, which is an umbrella organisation of charities across the UK, released its report, The state and the voluntary sector, today. It said that the £12bn given to the third sector by government – which amounts to 2% of expenditure on public services – could be an ‘easy target’ for cuts. It warned that 25,000 organisations receive 75% of their funding from statutory sources and any cut would have ‘catastrophic consequences for the wellbeing of communities.
It singled out social care, employment and training, law and advocacy and housing as areas that would be particularly affected by a reduction in third sector service provision.
Karl Wilding, head of research at the NCVO, told Public Finance: ‘In the past, cutting third sector funding has been the easy option. Sometimes voluntary organisations are least able to complain. Even if services were moved over to the public sector, the voluntary sector’s expertise means it can provide better services at a cheaper price.’
He added that the services most likely to be cut were ones that statutory bodies are not required to provide. ‘These include youth services – authorities are not compelled to provide them, but they make quite a difference to the quality of life,’ he said. ‘The worry overall is that some social services will stop being provided full stop and those users will be left in the lurch.’
James Cathcart, chief executive of the British Youth Council, told PF: ‘We fear that changes to our funding relationships with the national and local public sector commissioning process, indeed the termination of some of them, could adversely affect the quality and level of established practice.
‘It’s not always a case of either the state or voluntary sector providing a service. In our experience some of the best practice developed in recent years derives from a mutually dependent and beneficial relationship between the two.’
Phil Collis, project manager of TLC Care Services, which provides services for disabled people, said: ‘If our contracts were removed it would leave stroke victims in those boroughs unable to access the high quality care and support they need once they have been discharged from hospital care.’
