Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Civil society resources
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Civil society resources

791

Published on

1 Comment
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
791
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
1
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Commentary The CC register is the only indicator of start ups/closures we have: however, major changes are likely to reflect administrative effort. There does not however appear to be significant changes in start ups or removals at times of recession. The important point also is that downturns might lead to a redistribution of income – to be frank from the weak to the strong. Some have argued that, at an aggregate level, this will lead to an improvement in efficiency. This however only relates to the public services delivery function of the sector.
  • The only other real growth area is the voluntary sector: but this is in essence an internal transfer of resources within the sector, so maybe not useful to think of it as such.
  • Tories: “Conservative plans imply cuts to spending on public services that have not been delivered over any five-year period since the Second World War.” After protected depts, £52bn is to be saved: 22% of total DEL spending. Labour: need to find £46bn of cuts from £200bn of non protected DEL: 23% of the total LD: The broad fiscal arithmetic that faces whoever forms the next government was set out by Chancellor Alistair Darling in the March Budget. The fiscal repair job that is now needed as a result of the damage done to the UK's public finances by the financial crisis and associated recession is now estimated at £67bn. Under Labour's plans 70 per cent of this would be dealt with by 2014-15 – one-third through tax raising measures and two-thirds via spending cuts (to fall disproportionately on investment spending). No details have been published over the composition of the remaining 30 per cent aside from the fact that investment spending is to be spared from further cuts. The government's plans for public spending to 2014-15 are therefore extremely challenging. Total spending, after economy-wide inflation, is to be broadly flat. But within this debt interest spending is rising sharply, and under current policies the cost of welfare payments would continue growing as, for example, baby boomers reach the state pension age. As a result, public service budgets are set for a tight squeeze. Our estimates suggest that spending on public services over the next four years would, under current policies, face the deepest cuts since the four years from April 1976 to March 1980. Central government spending on public services could be cut, after inflation, by around 12 per cent by 2014-15 relative to 2010-11 which would be sufficient to undo almost all of the increase in this spending as a share of national income since Labour came to power. Some areas of spending are likely to receive even deeper cuts. Labour has committed to continued sharp increases in overseas aid, to some increases in spending on schools and to freeze non-investment spending on the NHS. If these pledges were made for four years (in the case of schools and the NHS the government has committed to them only for two years) then the cuts required elsewhere would, on average, reach 25 per cent of their current budgets. This would make deep cuts in spending on areas such as housing, transport and higher education unavoidable. Other possibilities to alleviate some of the pain from public services include further tax raising measures or significant cuts to welfare spending. Implications for the future: In Canada, there is a long history of government funding and co-optation of social movements, social service agencies and "civil society" actors. When this changed with neoliberal cut-backs, many movements died, and those that remain and found a way to remain autonomous are often hostile to those who obtain government funding. This tension is clear in the immigrant rights movement, antipoverty movements - and in indigenous struggles - which is riven between movement organizations and groups that are dependent on government funding and those who are membership funded.
  • Big vs small is worth mentioning
  • Transcript

    • 1. Civil Society financial resources in 2010 Karl Wilding, Head of Research National Council for Voluntary Organisations Contact: karl.wilding@ncvo-vol.org.uk or www.twitter.com/karlwilding Evidence|Resources|Policy|Opinion|Signposting: www.ncvo-vol.org.uk
    • 2. Current context
    • 3. The growth in charity numbers, 1960-present 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 Totalnumberofcharities -15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 Registrations/Removalsperyear Registrations Removals Number of Charities
    • 4. Income: £264m 91,000 micro organisations 4,566 major organisations Income: £26.9 billion 75,000 small/ medium organisations Income: £8.4 billion Income is heavily skewed to the few…
    • 5. How to grow by £10bn: donors + delivery 9.4 9.0 11.5 11.5 12.4 13.1 13.1 8.0 8.5 9.6 9.7 11.3 11.9 12.8 3.9 4.1 1.9 3.0 1.3 2.0 0.7 0.5 £0 £2 £4 £6 £8 £10 £12 £14 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03* 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Individual Statutory Sources Internally Generated Voluntary Sector Private Sector National Lottery £billions
    • 6. Statutory income = £12.8 billion 8 30 55 68 73 22 5 22 35 38 37 36 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Micro Small Medium Large Major Total Proportion of organisations that receive state funding (%) % statutory income of total income
    • 7. 70% 51% 51% 50% 50% 45% 43% 40% 25% 24% 16% 15% 7% 3% 10% 34% 22% 32% 23% 14% 41% 25% 39% 51% 58% 62% 50% 41% 4% 6% 11% 7% 10% 18% 5% 19% 15% 18% 9% 8% 11% 6% 5% 5% 5% 6% 10% 13% 6% 5% 9% 4% 12% 13% 24% 38% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Employment and Training Education Law and Advocacy Social Services Housing Umbrella bodies Health Development Culture and Recreation International Environment Religion Research Grant-making foundations Statutory sources Individuals Voluntary sector Private sector Internally generated National Lottery
    • 8. DfES and the Home Office together accounted for 36% of central government’s VCS spending. Central government departments’ reported spending on VCOs, 2005/06 (£ millions)
    • 9. Earned income only: contracts are driving growth, not sales to people/other sectors 2.0 2.1 3.5 4.2 3.4 3.8 3.0 3.9 4.1 5.9 4.9 6.0 5.7 5.3 4.0 4.4 4.7 5.5 7.4 8.1 9.1 £0 £2 £4 £6 £8 £10 £12 £14 £16 £18 £20 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03* 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Statutory sources Individuals Other sources
    • 10. Access to statutory income varies according to where VCOs are based… Proportion of VCOs in each local authority that receive statutory income, 2006/07 (%) (quintiles)
    • 11. …but there is some evidence that access to funding is related to need. Proportion of VCOs that receive local authority funding, classified by the index of multiple deprivation, 2009 (%)
    • 12. Free reserves 1.4 4.1 4.5 4.6 4.8 5.0 6.3 6.5 6.7 6.8 8.0 8.0 9.2 9.5 18.2 19.9 44.3 74.7 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Playgroups and nurseries Umbrella bodies Employment and training International Law and advocacy Parent Teacher Associations Culture and recreation Village Halls Development Scout groups and youth clubs Social Services Health Education Environment Religion Housing Grant-making foundations Research Months
    • 13. Cuts… 8.0 8.5 9.6 9.7 11.3 11.9 12.8 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03* 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Statutory funding of the VCS, 2001/01- 2007/08 (£billions). Source: NCVO Spending back to here? • Cuts in expenditure take us back to 2003/04: back to pre-Change Up levels • Cuts imply loss in income to the sector of £3.1-£3.2 billions, but assumes a) VCS funded only by unprotected depts, b) political indifference to the sector
    • 14. How did government respond in 1991-93? 38 20 18 16 13 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Cut funding Look on charity as an extension of social services Moved us lower down list of priorities Became more sympathetic Moved us higher up list of priorities Increased rent/charges for facilities 37 19 14 11 9 6 6 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Cut funding Pressure to become service providers Less sympathetic to aims More sympathetic to aims More funding provided Shifted responsibility from government Tightened charity laws Yes 33% No 61% DK 6% Local Government Yes 23% No 64% DK 13% Central Government Commentary A majority report no change in attitude of government to the sector – but where there was a response the most widely cited response was a funding cut.
    • 15. Statutory funding matters • £12.8 bn statutory funding is clearly critical to voluntary organisations and the communities they serve • 25% cut = £3.2bn • Local authority funding dominates: and this has been characterised by a clear shift from grants to contracts. • Not all have benefited from this expansion: small organisations have not been successful in winning contracts
    • 16. Public Service delivery has shaped the sector • The VCS has geared-up relatively quickly • Large and mid-sized organisations now rely heavily on contracts to deliver public services, particularly social care • At least 450,000 paid staff are involved in the major service delivery areas • But the sector is still a minor player in the public services industry
    • 17. Resource threats 1. Inefficient resource allocation 2. Can we cut public spending and maintain capacity to grow the Big Society? 3. The funding ecosystem: loss of diversity 4. The gap between ‘here’ (funding) and ‘there’ (finance) 5. Does more localism just mean more resources for town halls? Or communities of place? 6. Disappointment: scale is an issue that will not go away 7. Loss of distinctiveness and independence: why give?
    • 18. Resource opportunities 1. Grassroots resources: the voluntary impulse is strong 2. Capacity: voluntary organisations are more resilient than a decade ago 3. Resource allocation: new forms of social finance 4. Giving: citizen philanthropy 5. Asset transfer/sharing 6. Working Wikily: new technology and open data will power social change/resources 7. The ferment of ideas produced by the Big Society
    • 19. Where next: emerging questions for policy 1. Does Big Government really 'crowd out' Big Society? 2. How do we address the issue of scaling-up voluntary action? Big charities? 3. Can the Big Society engage all parts of the community, not just those who shout loudest? 4. Are we prepared to stay with this for the long-term? 5. What do VCOs – civil society - want the Big Society to be?

    ×