Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

The local ecology of charitable resources, rose lindsey, sra seminar, march 2013


Published on

Published in: Travel, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

The local ecology of charitable resources, rose lindsey, sra seminar, march 2013

  1. 1. The Local “Ecology” ofCharitable Resources:Case Studies inContrasting Communities.SRA Seminar 20-03-2013Rose
  2. 2. Focus of this paperTo explore evidence of existing variation and/or similarity in thecharitable landscapes of two contrasting case-study areas –one affluent, and one deprived – in South East England.Looking specifically at: The relationship between charities and need at aneighbourhood level Differences in the flow of charitable resources at aneighbourhood level Are there inequalities? Policy relevance of this evidence
  3. 3. Policy contextTo explore how these communities might respond to:•Austerity measures and reductions in public spending•Big Society and Localism agendas which include thewithdrawal of the state and the devolution of power tosmall
  4. 4. Sources of evidence: Desk top research to identify charities registered to, andgiving benefit to 2 contrasting case-study areas from thesame non-metropolitan district council/local government areain SE England. 43 semi-structured interviews with 51 individuals from 41different organisations. Respondents included managers ofcharities, trustees of charities, and key stakeholders fromcase-study areas. Timeframe for collection of evidence – Sept 2010 – Aug
  5. 5. Profiles of neighbourhood case-study areasArea Type of housing and living environment Other characteristicsThe Estate(20% mostdeprived)Three times as many people living on TheEstate compared to The Village.Social housing which consists of tenancies in•Less popular low-rise flats•Individual houses• High levels of state benefits• Relatively high population turnover• Benefited from Regenerationinitiatives and Area Based Grantsfrom the State• Ethnically homogenous –predominantly white BritishTheVillage(20% leastdeprived)1.5 times as large as The Estate, and lessdensely populated•High levels of owner occupation•11% social renting – two small housing estates(residents appear marginalised)• Prosperous village• High proportion of retired people,some of whom have moved into thearea for retirement• Ethnically homogenous –predominantly white
  6. 6. Distribution The Village has approximately four times as manycharities, per person, as the Estate Greater sustainability (79%) of registered charities inThe Village compared to The Estate (42%)
  7. 7. Types of charities registered to and benefiting the case-study areasThe Estate The VillageRegistered faith charities - the majority of these have astrong charitable presence in the case-studycommunities1 7Small charities primarily funded by donations, feesand sales, and run by volunteers - meet a mix ofneeds – health/disability, social isolation,community, mutual benefit, cultural.3 11(58%)Small educational charities for deprived children, mostlyfrom the Estate, run by staff members1 1Larger charities, primarily funded by central orlocal government staffed by paid professionals.Meet core basic needs of community, early years,health, advice + 1 cultural9(64%)0Total 14 19
  8. 8. Charities registered elsewhere that benefit the case-study areasThe Estate The VillageSupport for parents who have difficultyparentingSocial activities for sociallyisolated elderly peopleHousing associations offering sociallyrented housingHousing Association forsocially rented housing in 2small areas of deprivationSupport for women experiencingdomestic abuseDrop-in mobile SureStartWork with young people at risk ofoffending3 volunteer run charity shopsin aid of hospicesSupport with unemployment Volunteers raising money forpopular large national charities
  9. 9. Visibility of informal activityhighly visible unregistered organisations that provide access to sport,public spaces, the arts, gardening, languages and social activitiesThe Estate – less visible The Village – highly visibleVarious activities, like Women’sInstitute, bingo, Good Neighboursscheme, support for internationalaid, that are organised throughlocal churches (adds to work of TheEstate’s one, formal faith charity)Well advertised highly visibleunregistered organisations thatprovide access to sport, publicspaces, environmental issues,community, the arts, gardening,languages and social activitiesSmall unregistered environmentalgroupInvisible (to researchers) informalactivity undertaken through strongsocial ties – neighbours and familyInvisible (to researchers) informalactivity undertaken through strongsocial ties – neighbours and family
  10. 10. Interviewee views on differences in levels offormal engagement:• Residents of The Estate: chaotic lifestyles, poor time-management, lackof confidence, lack of project management skills, successful peopleleave the area - all affect capacity to take part.• Residents of The Village: lots of project management skills, lots ofrecently retired people who have moved into the community. Use ofweak social
  11. 11. The Village The EstateFlows back out of community aswages to non-local professionals,and rents to Local AuthorityExternal statutory fundingflows into the EstatePays for provision of servicesCHARITABLE ECONOMIES
  12. 12. Villageresidents’ use ofweak social ties(excludes 2small areas ofdeprivation)The charitable ecology of The VillageLocaldecisionmaking
  13. 13. The Estate –professionalcharitableorganisations –use of voluntaryand statutorypartnershipsThe charitable ecology of The EstateResidentsinvited to beinvolved – littletake-up
  14. 14. Case-study areas: difference rather thaninequality? Identified a range of differences between areas, this includes: numbers ofcharities; levels of sustainability; capacity for voluntarism; and the flow ofresources within these two communities. Difference relates to the type of needs being met. Needs reflect therelative levels of deprivation of both communities, (except for the 2 smallhousing estates in The Village – this represents an inequality) ‘High’ culture is very evident in the formal and informal engagementpractices of The Village, although in 2011, the arts charity in The Estatewas arguing for the cultural entitlement of the residents as part ofaspiration for the area. Does ‘high’ culture survive in deprived areas duringausterity?
  15. 15. Capacity to take up Big Society andLocalism agendas?Austerity measures accompany new localist policies in reducing publicspending, and bringing about the withdrawal of state, with communitiesbeing expected to provide for themselves.If funding is withdrawn?The Village charities are self-financing and the community wouldcontinue to make decisions for itself.The Estate charities would fold, removing the voices of these charities,and the residents they represent. These voices would be lost from localdecision making processes. Faith organisations may take up some of the gaps?
  16. 16. Future work?• Further qualitative and quantitative work on sustainability oforganisations in deprived communities since the economic crisis of2008• Case-studies of bridging of social divides. A research study thatlooks for communities and organisations where there is bridging,and how and why this is
  17. 17. Relevant papers• Lindsey R. (2012) ‘Exploring local hotspots and deserts: investigatingthe local distribution of charitable resources’ CGAP working paper:• Lindsey R. (2013) ‘Exploring local hotspots and deserts: investigatingthe local distribution of charitable resources’ Voluntary Sector Review4 (1) 1-22• Mohan J. & Lindsey R.,(2012) ‘Local charitable ecologies? Trackingflows of charitable resources into contrasting communities in South-East England’ (submitted for publication)• ESRC ‘The contrasting world of charities’ in ESRC evidence briefingFebruary 2013: