Below is a copy of the deputation that Camden BME Alliance sent to London Borough of Camden

Deputation to culture & environment scrutiny

From

Date

Information
Consultation Action

Introduction

1. Camden BME Alliance (CBMEA) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Review of the Voluntary and Community Sector funding – final allocation.

2. We recognise that the implications of this review are far-reaching, for the broader VCS and the BME sector in particular. CBMEA also recognise that as an umbrella body, representing 40 BME VCS organisations, it is important that we respond robustly to the proposals that have been put forward particularly given that a number of our organisations work with some of the most marginalised and vulnerable members within Camden.

Summary

3. This paper sets out CBMEAs formal response to Camden review of the Voluntary and Community Sector funding – final allocation. It should be stated that our collective view is one of great concern about this process and its outcomes. Detailed feedback is set out further on in this briefing. However a bulleted summary of our collective thoughts are set out below:

The recommendations appear to be clearly driven by financial imperatives and motives, rather than the sustainability of Camden’s VCS

There is a lack of clarity regarding the bases for the Council’s decisions

Absence of a equality impact assessment on both the process and its recommendations

Discretionary Rate Relief should be reviewed in full consultation with the voluntary sector, and any review needs to be open and transparent.

It is abundantly clear that the Council has given little consideration to CBMEAs earlier proposals, forwarded earlier in the year

Background and context

4. The VCS in Camden is well established. The scope and range of activities undertaken by VCOs in the borough is wide ranging and includes service provision, facilitation and lobbying. Robust networks mean that our reach extends to the least accessible in the borough. The sector therefore brings a wealth of knowledge and expertise to the table and is a significant asset to the community of Camden.

5. CBMEA acknowledges that the Council is clearly operating within a highly pressurised environment. As a recipient and custodian of public funds the Council has a statutory duty to demonstrate value for money and meet local and national efficiency targets. The additional pressures of internal scrutiny, by Council Members and external assessment, through bodies such as the Audit Commission only underline the necessity for financial prudence. As part of this, the Council must look at all its resources and CBMEA appreciates that the public would not expect VCS funding to be exempt from this.

Specific issues

6. CBMEA has carefully considered the Council’s VCS funding review final recommendations report and our broad observations are set out under the sub headers below.

Cuts

7. A number of BME organisations have had their funding cut. For a number of them this significantly undermines their ability to continue to deliver services as well the Council’s stated commitment to the sector. CBMEA would ask that the Council indicate how it proposes to mitigate the negative impacts of funding cuts to those organisations and those they support

8. Even after a third reading of the paper, it is unclear exactly how Council Officers have arrived at decisions or carried our any assessment of there impact. This lack of clarity sector suggests that the drivers for the review are purely financial and have nothing to do with the sustainability of the VCS going forward. The fact that no equality impact assessment was carried in line with the Council’s own requirements on the impact of commissioned services on equalities groups is also profoundly troubling. Indeed it calls into question the Council’s commitment equities groups.

9. On the matter of commissioning, CBMEA is concerned that organisations that have completed a process that covers tendered services for a three year period are now being placed in a position where they will now be expected to renegotiate these contracts on an annual basis. This appears to fly in the face of effective financial management as it would surely be prudent for all contracts to be negotiated once having confirmed the total contract value as is the norm elsewhere.

10. CBMEA is also concerned that by that cutting funding to infrastructure organisations, the Council misses the point. Within the borough, VCS infrastructure requires significant development. Many VCSOs (in particular those in the BME sector) require major support in the areas of research, policy, performance management and business planning. Increased facilitation in these areas will strengthen capacity in the sector and in the longer term, enhance frontline service delivery. Over time, as VCSOs develop their capacity, fewer will be reliant on VCS grant funding as greater numbers tap into alternative financing.

11. CBMEA is also concerned that, following the publication of a recent report, commissioned by the Change Up Steering Group, from the Office of Public Management which established that for every one pound in contract income invested in the voluntary and community sector by the London Borough of Camden a further £5 was levered in the borough from other funders. Considering this, CBMEA struggles to see how the administration agenda of ‘better and cheaper’ will be achieved by reducing funding that is ploughed into the sector. In CBMEA’s opinion this will only be achieved when addition resources (not less) are allocated to support the voluntary and community sector to enable it increase its leverage

12. CBMEA also requests from the council that any review of the discretionary rate relief is open (DRR), transparent and comprehensive. CBMEA would interpret the withdrawal of (DDR) as a cut to the sector and therefore potentially a destabilising factor. Any decisions that are made in regards to this should be made in consultation with the voluntary sector. It would in effect reduce the recoverable rate relief for charities in Camden from the National Business Rate Pool.

13. Finally, in CBMEA’s view it would be to the detriment of service delivery and to the detriment of equity if these cuts were to be agreed. Short term measures will not achieve the longer term objectives of economic, efficient and effective services. In view of this CBMEA would urge the Committee to reject the recommendations for cuts in the budget

Monica Olusola

Revised on 2 Jul 2007