Appendix 3

Responses to the 1st stage consultation as reported to Cabinet’s meeting on
25th January 2011.

      Report on the Consultative Conference with the VCS held on 22 nd
       November 2010;

      Copy of a letter from Mr Sean Loudon, Chair of the Counselling Sub-
       Group of the Mental Health LIT to Ealing GP’s and Practice Managers;

      Paper from Mr Sean Loudon: “LBE and PCT Review of Grant Funding
       to Voluntary Sector Providers of Counselling Services”;

      Copy of letter from Stephen Day, Director of Adult Services to Mr Sean
       Loudon, referring to the above;

      From Acton Community Forum.

      From Ealing Mediation Service;

      From Southall Black Sisters;

      Correspondence with Ealing Homestart.



In total 115 delegates attended. The full list of delegates who signed in is at
Appendix A


Councillor Julian Bell (Leader of the Council) outlined the overall financial position of
the Council and the approach it was taking to budget reductions

During a question and answer session Cllr Bell made the following points:

      At this stage the overall cuts were around 25%- however additional cuts
       could be needed once the Councils overall grant was announced by the
       Government in mid-December

      There were suggestions London Councils could do badly- funding cuts could
       reach 30%

      The council was focusing first on increased efficiencies-frontline service cuts
       were only around 21% of the overall 25% cut

      It was hoped to keep compulsory redundancies by Council staff to less than
       100 posts

      The Government was rolling previous Area Based Grants into the Councils
       overall grant- it wasn’t possible to identify the final impact until the national
       announcement in December

      The Council had not yet taken final decisions on the Albert Dane and LINKS
       Centres- decisions would be made at the LBE Cabinet on 30 November

      As Leader of the Council he welcomed ideas from ECN on how to deal with
       VCS funding cuts and the Labour Group had previously recognised the ECN
       proposal that VCS cuts should be no greater than in the Council overall

Brendon Walsh from LBE presented the draft proposals on VCS funding cuts by LBE
and NHS Ealing -for consultation. In addition to discussion at the conference, VCS
groups could submit written comments by e-mail to Nigel Fogg in the LBE Grants
Team by Monday 6 December. Comments should be e-mailed to

Andy Roper Chair of ECN, presented initial issues and questions on the proposed cuts
on behalf of ECN. Due to illness, Carmel Cahill read these out for Andy


Adult Health and Social Care Workshops (x2)

      No to 35% reduction- unfair to have a higher level of cut than LBE

      Cuts should be phased over 2 to 3 years-not all in year one

      Cuts in VCS services will reduce choices for users, limit access by hard to
       reach communities and create gaps for people not on personalised budgets

      Core funding is essential if local VCS health and social care groups are to
       survive and bring in additional external funding to Ealing

      VCS groups are already lean organisations so no more fat to cut away - due to
       the recession local VCS groups already hit by reduced donations

      Timing of the new commissioning and winding down of existing services is
       not in sync-needs a longer timescale

      There are more commissioning priorities than in the last funding round but
       much less money will be available

      The proposed new commissioning priorities seem to target larger groups
       which will adversely affect smaller organisations

      No information given on how much funding will be provided for each new
       commissioning priority area-this lack of information means VCS groups
       cannot assess the impact on users

      Proposal to cut VCS services for low to moderate need users is risky-
       important that preventative work continues or it will mean more people
       deteriorating into substantial/ critical needs and therefore increased costs
       for LBE and NHS Ealing

      Error to believe that the voluntary sector does not also support people with
       high level needs

      Feeling that there are just as many people with high levels of need being
       supported by the voluntary sector as by LBE –needs proper evidence based

      Underlying assumption appears to be that voluntary sector is not as
       important as LBE services

      Transition to personalised budgets will be endangered by cuts

      The consultation documents suggest VCS groups can make up for cuts
       through new services to personalised budget holders -will individual budgets
       be big enough to meet increased charges VCS groups will need to raise to
       make up for cuts

      Will there be enough people on personalised budgets to provide a critical
       mass of service users that VCS groups will need to make up for cuts

      Debated whether the assumption that the voluntary sector can take on
       support planning and brokerage for people with personalised budgets is
       correct. Some organisations felt that this could conflict with the advocacy
       role (e.g. financial assessment decisions cause conflict between advocacy and
       support planning). Other groups did not see any conflict as see these as
       different steps in the process

      FACS does not meet the needs of young people with learning disabilities or
       physical disabilities – does not work

      Proceeds from the sale of Albert Dane and LINKS Centre should be fed back
       into funding support for the voluntary sector to make the transition to
       personalised budgets

      There are opportunities for the VCS through new social enterprises and
       partnership working with LBE and NHS Ealing-these should be explored as an
       alternative to cuts

Children’s Health and Social Care Workshops (x2)

      Grossly unfair to give a much bigger cut to VCS than the rest of LBE-should be
       the same or LESS than corporate Council cuts

      Cuts should be phased in over a 3 year period rather than all starting from
       Oct 2011 - to prepare for redundancies and new ways of working

      As much notice as possible is needed in order to make contingency plans to
       either close a service or source additional external funding

      Needs information from LBE on how much funding will be allocated to each
       of the proposed new commissioning priorities

      Support proposed new commissioning priority around young carers-should
       be of all ages

      Support for young carers a priority-min £50,000 per annum

      Support proposed new commissioning priority around respite short breaks

      Support proposed new commissioning priority around children affected by
       domestic violence

      Child Poverty is not being made a priority in the new commissioning areas

      Under proposed new commissioning priority around prevention, more work
       is needed with young boys and on speech/language communication

      Disagree with LBE proposal to cease funding all lower threshold family
       support services- early intervention work reduces cost of higher level needs
       later on

      Cost-shunting-cuts in VCS groups will lead to more high need families seeking
       support from Council or NHS services

      Voluntary organisations (e.g. Pests and CAF) support families pre-diagnosis,
       thereby filling a gap by LBE.

      LBE family services -SAFE, Children’s Centres and Coram –already refer
       families on to VCS groups

      VCS children’s groups facing `double impact` of grant cuts and increased
       demand from users due to increased birth rate, need for SENS, parents
       affected by unemployment

      Contradicts ‘big society’ ethos , which supports CVS as value for money,
       grassroots, high quality, needs led and trusted by local people

      Small/medium size children’s groups may not have skills to write new funding
       bids to make up for Council grant cuts

      There may be opportunities to mitigate the impact of cuts on VCS children’s
       groups by:

       Co-location of services
       Reducing unit costs by partnership working
       Supporting each other (eg ICT)
       Looking for duplication
       Rent savings
       Joint Governance
       Shared language support
       Joint work with young offenders

       Co-ordinating safeguarding work for third sector
       Early Intervention

       It is recommended LBE cost out impacts and evidence and support
       partnership workshops by VCS children’s groups to discuss these options in
       more detail

Community Grants Workshops (x2)

      Disagree that VCS should have a higher % cut than that of the Council

      Should be equality of cuts to community groups grants- not 100%, 50%, 19%
       as suggested in the LBE paper

      Oppose 100% cuts to any group

      Are we considering survival of groups? Important that groups do survive so
       they can deliver the Big Society

      Why is there no phasing of cuts over 3 years like that proposed for the
       Councils own cuts?

      Returned London Council funding should be re-invested/ ring fenced for VCS

      Consider local VCS groups who may lose current London Councils grants

      Any new commissioning should be met out of returned London Councils
       funding rather than through extra cuts to existing organisations

      Need more consultation on priorities for new areas of commissioning - is this
       the right time to be funding new initiatives?

      Investment in fundraising workers is a key priority to help VCS groups apply
       for external funding to make up for cuts

      Area based support organisations (e.g. Acton Community Forum, Southall
       Community Alliance, Greenford Northolt and Perivale Community Federation
       and Ealing Community Resource Centre) are an important priority because of
       the services they provide locally

      Why were the cuts announced before the Equality Impact Assessments were
       fully considered- this is an on-going process and LBE needs to have ‘due
       regard’ to the EIA forms returned by VCS groups

      Emphasis from the Council seems to be about protecting Council services, yet
       volume of service delivery by VCS is much higher than the Council’s.

      Preventative schemes (e.g. for youth, older people 85+, children, people with
       disabilities) are essential so that they do not become in need of critical or
       substantial services

      Distinction between small group funding for project costs and running costs
       and why one is rolled over and the other is not- confusing!

      No overall picture of the impact of proposed cuts in community grants and
       how many local people will be affected

Cross Cutting Issues Workshops (x2)

      Should be equal cuts with Ealing Council- not VCS cuts of 35%-100% as in the
       consultation document

      Some local VCS groups (eg groups receiving ABG children’s grants) have
       already received 25% cuts this year, any more cuts would be additional

      Transparency in PCT internal cuts and transfer to voluntary sector of 35% cut
       to health and social care grants

      Phase VCS cuts over 3-4 years- equivalent to Council’s time frame

      Unrealistic timeframes in relation to transition to personalised budgets

      No assessment made of geographic impact of VCS cuts on targeted services
       for key disadvantaged groups/areas

      LBE and NHS Ealing should use indices of deprivation when considering future
       distribution of grant funding

      Priorities for grant cuts were set before Equality Impact Assessment results
       received- continuous consultation needed

      Priorities for preventive services need to be included (e.g. Homestart,
       Havelock Family Centre, YWCA etc)

      Returned London Council’s money coming back should go to voluntary sector
       to mitigate cuts

      Support Ealing VCS groups currently receiving London Council Grant

      London Councils funding should be used for growth areas (e.g. DV, IAG)

      Ealing Council need to be fully transparent and carry out a Full Cost Recovery
       of its frontline services compared with those provided by the voluntary sector

      LBE should work with local VCS to mitigate the impact of cuts e.g.

       Developing new VCS consortia
       Sharing VCS back office services to save costs
       Cross borough working
       Increased partnership work by VCS to provide more efficient service for users
       Where local VCS can provide a cheaper service LBE should consider
       outsourcing Council services

Note: Additional comments from individual delegates posted up on discussion
boards are recorded at Appendix B


Notes from the Conference will be written up, sent to all delegates at the
conference, available on the ECN website and circulated to the LBE Overview and
Scrutiny Panel and joint VCS Funding Cuts Panel of Councillors, ECN reps and NHS
Ealing reps

The LBE Overview and Scrutiny Panel meeting on 2 December will look at all LBE
budget proposals including those affecting the VCS. ECN reps will be invited to
attend and make a presentation

The next meeting of the joint VCS Funding Cuts Panel will be held on 20 December
and will discuss feedback from VCS groups, notes from the conference and initial
analysis of the Equalities Impact Assessment

Further national information on the overall Council grant settlement and future of
current ABG funding should be available in mid-December. In addition in December
more information should be available on future London Councils funding

ECN will hold further meetings and discussions with local VCS groups in December
and early January

Further reports on VCS funding cuts will be taken to the LBE Cabinet and NHS Ealing
Investment and Resources Sub-Group in January

For further updates VCS groups can contact:

ECN Chair: Andy Roper (andy@ealingcvs.org.uk)
Nigel Fogg: LBE Grants Team (foggn@ealing.gov.uk)
Leanda Richardson: Adult Services (richardsonl@ealing.gov.uk)
Maggie Wilson: Children’s Services (wilsonm@ealing.gov.uk)


Nigel Fogg and Delores Graham (LBE), Carmel Cahill and Tiyon Simpson (ECN) and
ECVS Volunteers for organisation of the conference

The following people for leading discussion workshops: Maggie Wilson, Leanda
Richardson and Delores Graham (LBE); Halima Abouannaoual, Jim Wong, Dan
Paskins, Antony Bewick-Smith and Rahma Elmi (ECVS)


The following delegates signed in the attendance register:

Last Name        First Name         Organisation
Abouannaoual     Halima             Ealing CVS
Ahmed            Osman              Red Sea Health & Community Care
Ahmed            Mohammed           Education Support and Development Group
Ali              Amina              Somali Women's Refugee Centre
Andors           Jonny              Support For Living
Appiah           Jeri               Mind in Ealing & Hounslow

                                    Age Concern-Greenford, Northolt and
Asamany          Yaa                Perivale
Balraj           Raj                Age Link
Barden           Linda              Medcliffe Community Nursery
Barker           Vicki              Apple
Basran           Janpal             Southall Community Alliance
Belsey           Steve              EBS Coop Ltd
Beswick-Smith    Antony             Ealing CVS
Bhasin           D.S.               Southall Health Improvement Partnership
Bowyer           Cathy              Grand Union Village Community Centre
Brand            Ethelca            DONA
Breen            Ian                Acton Homeless Concern
Buddle           Andrew             Southall Neighbourly Care
Burke            Cheryl             Sparc Foundation
Burles           Tony               Relate London NW
Cahill           Carmel             ECN
Chamberlain      Louise             Homestart Ealing
Chambers         Judith             Housing For Women
Clark            Sarah              Kids Cookery School
Clifford         Karie              Ealing Social Club For The Blind
Coward           Mrs                Epilepsy Action
Cox              Andrew             Middlesex Association For The Blind
Daniel           Knox               Ealing Community Resource Centre
Dasani           Jay                Videsagar School
Davar            Ruston             Impact Theatre
Davey            Deborah            Ealing Neighbourhood Mediation

Davidson         Bill           Acton Alliance
Davies           Iris           Sanctuary Carr-Gomm
Dima             H.A.           Barwaqa
Doyle            Lee            Brentford Football in the Community
Elmi             Rahma          Ealing CVS
English          Frances        Ealing Dementia Concern
Ferriday         Nic            Friends Of The Earth
Fleming          Lorna          LBE Commissioning
Flynn            Sharon         Log Cabin
Flynn            Steve          Acton Community Forum
Fogg             Nigel          LBE
Francis          Sylvia         Third Age Foundation
Friedson         Matt           Acton Community Forum
Graham           Sue            LBE
Graham           Delores        LBE
Fairley          Fiona          Kids Cookery School
Handule          Mukhtar        Golden Opportunities Youth Association
Harris           Angie          Neighbourly Care Hanwell
Hawke            Sandra         Crossroads Care WL
Hawkins          B.A            Epilepsy Action
Hertenstein      Antoinette     Ealing Race and Equality Council
Hillman          Julian         MENCAP
Hunter           Lesley         Pre-School Learning Alliance
Hussain-Curtis   Rifit          Ealing PCT
Ibrahim          Sulayman       Somali Family Learning
James            Stephen        Ealing PCT
Johnson          Loredana       Crossroads Care WL
Jones            Peter E.       EREC
Kanwar           Santosh        Southall Day Centre
Khera            Amarjit        Panjabi Centre
Khurshid         Jawaid         Asian Health Agency
Kirkwood         Ron            Harleyford Manor Residents Association
Kontos           Eve            London Cyrenian Housing
Lawler           Eamonn         Action Acton
Leigh            Rumwold        SAR
Liban            Shena          Refugee Aid and Development
Lowe             Ruth           YWCA
Luck             Rosemary       Advocacy Voice
Mansell          Rebecca        Deaf Plus
Matthews         Heather        Contact-A-Family Ealing
McLellan         Deirdre        Youth 2 Youth
Meacham          Sue            PESTS
Messer           Edwina         ECVS
Michaels         Edmond         MECMAC
Mohamed          A.             Samafal Community Association

Muhamad          Muusa            Tallo Centre
                                  CAME Women and Girls Development
Nywydzewira      Margaret         Organisation
Ogwel            Huldah           Together In Prosperity
Ohanian          Misak            Armenian Centre
Onuoha           Chris            Oke-Osisi Afrika
Osbourne         Sharon           Medcliffe Community Nursery
Osman            Abdullahi        Access For Support & Development
Owen             Ann              Neighbourly Care Hanwell
Palepan          Nousha           Lady's Creative Centre
Paskins          Dan              Ealing CVS
Potts            Ian              EREC
Prema            Usha             LBE
Puran            Krishan          Brentford FCCST
Quansah          Grace            Positive Awareness
Rahi             Neelam           Havelock Family Centre
Randhawa         Kulbir           Asian Family Counselling Service
Rea              Ken              Koru Theatre
Renn             Rita             Oaktree Flower Club
Richards         Zoe              LBE / NHS Ealing
Richardson       Leanda           LBE
Roper            Andy             ECN
Scott Booth      Clare            YMCA
Sear             John             Hanwell Community Centre
Sear             Jackie           EASE
Siddiqui         Hannana          Southall Black Sisters
Singh            Ricky            EREC
Smith            Steve            Turning Point
Swan             John             United Anglo Caribbean Society
Tannis-Harriet   Lehoma           Ealing Street Pastors
Walsh            Brendon          LBE
Whillier         Denyse           Age Concern - Ealing
Whitty           Anna             Ealing Community Transport
Wilson           Maggie           LBE
Wong             Jim              ECVS
Wright           David            Turning Point
Yadav            Asha             Contact-A-Family Southall
Zaidi            Kaneez           Pre-School Learning Alliance
Zajovic          K-C              Acton Vale Community Centre


      Need to change mindsets- be prepared to learn from each other
      More joint working between groups - avoid duplication
      Encourage organisations and partnerships to network
      Share costs and services
      Some groups are delivering the same service- partnership working may work

      ECN to facilitate partnerships-use ECN website to facilitate expressions of
       interest eg joint training, joint IT
      Look at real cost of cuts- sometimes losing one grant can lead to much bigger
       cuts in other funding VCS groups have
      Are the real costs being calculated- i.e. matched funding lost as a result of
       grant going
      One member of staff can bring in lots of volunteers- multiplier effect in terms
       of benefits for Ealing residents
      Learn from the best Councils on VCS funding
      Do not cut frontline VCS services
      Overall, cuts should be no more than the Council.
      Phase cuts to give VCS time to organise
      Backload cuts to VCS as need should be less toward the end of the economic
      Ringfence returned London Council money to VCS
      Need clarity over timing and as much notice as possible
      Impact depends on how many sources of funding you already have- 30% can
       be devastating
      How did they decide these priorities?
      Cutting grants- who decides? What criteria are used?
      Support new priorities on advice and domestic violence
      New projects would take away funding from existing VCS services
      Why do we need to give large amounts of funding to 3 new LSP projects
       when we are facing 30% cut of current services?
      Impact on clients- more research needed?
      Need to have Equality Impact Assessments
      Prevention services should be a priority. Cutting voluntary sector too much
       will increase costs to the Council.
      How will the cuts impact on the tiny voluntary groups who only deal in the
       preventative field - not critical/substantial needs
      Give priority to vulnerable service users such as newly arrived committees,
       children and young people
      Must look at needs/beneficiaries rather than supporting organisations
      Council should take into account specialised service, or organisations
       providing services to specific groups of communities, which have developed
       expertise and knowledge for this specific group
      Who pays the personalised budgets broker? Does it not take away money
       that could go into direct frontline services?
      Reducing services will put more problems for the community
      Personally, I feel that grants from the council need to be prioritised to make
       sure the most vulnerable are still being looked after
      In what way is consideration bringing given to those service users who do not
       qualify for personalisation and individual budgets?
      Ealing Mediation Service is facing a 100% cut in grant and they ask that the
       following be taken into consideration:

                      They provide preventative and early intervention, thus saving
       the Council time and money
                      It’s a unique service, no direct organisation in LBE provides it
                      EIAs shows clients are vulnerable
                      LBE community safety strategy says LA must support local
       mediation services- EMS affected also by ABG also so could affect our whole
      Top slicing should not apply to groups getting small grants ( i.e. those who
       will have to close as no possibility of cost cutting and personalisation will not
       be applicable)
      Secure funding for the funding officers- ACF and SCA- to support the
       voluntary organisations in securing funding.
      Small voluntary groups should not be allowed to be undermined by private
       profit making organisations. Most of the personal services rendered by small
       groups are hard to be replicated by private enterprises.
      Young Carers should not be forgotten - a hidden army of very special people.

To: Ealing GPs and Practice Managers

From: Sean Loudon
Chair of the Counselling Sub Group of the Mental Health LIT                 29/10/10

               Re: Proposed Cuts to LBE and PCT Grant Funding

Dear Colleague,

I am writing to you on behalf of the Counselling Sub Group of the Ealing Mental
Health LIT about Grant Funding for Counselling services. All the voluntary sector
providers that receive grant funding are represented on the Sub Group.
Representatives from the Wellbeing Service (NHS) also attend. The services provided
are commissioned “Mental Health” services.

I enclose a document that hopefully will demonstrate to you the vital role that the
voluntary sector plays in the overall provision of counselling in Ealing and the impact
on GPs if there are any cuts in funding.

GPs are well aware of the effects of economic uncertainty and unemployment on
patients, on their families and on their carers.

The total grant budget for one to one counselling is only £151, 000 which is 6% of the
total “Health and Social Care Grant” budget.

Why should GPs be concerned?

Ideally the Council should assess each client sector on its respective merits. However,
if it is decided to top slice across all sectors by 25% or even 33% the total budget for
counselling will be drastically reduced.

The decision regarding the level of cuts and the sectors affected is due to be made by
the end of November. The revised budget figure will form the basis for the next
commissioning round that is due to take place in August 2011. Contracts to the
voluntary sector are awarded on a 3 years basis. This means that this lower level of
funding will continue until 2014. The full impact of Government cuts will seriously
bite over the next few years.

Why are the views of GPs important?

GPs were not involved in the decision making process during the commissioning
rounds started in 2003 and 2006.

The transfer from PCTs to GP consortia is not due until 2013. However given that the
PCTs are going to be abolished their influence will inevitably wane. In fact there is
some evidence that this is happening already. The involvement and influence of GPs

in commissioning decisions during the interim period leading up to the transfer must
become increasingly more important.

In reality, given the time frame, GPs should start to exert their influence immediately
because the LBE and PCT will be taking decisions that will directly affect you and
your patients over the next 3 years.

In the past GPs may have felt that it was “inappropriate” to intervene in
commissioning decisions involving the LBE and the PCT. It is also possible that they
may not have even been consulted.

If you are concerned about any possible cuts to the counselling budget or even if you
support them I would sincerely ask you to contact, either individually or collectively
via your respective GP Practice Based Commissioning Groups, any of the following:

Councillor Jasbir Anand (Portfolio holder Mental Health)

Councillor Shital Manro (Chair of Scrutiny Committee LBE)

Stephen Day (Director of Adult Services LBE)

Dr Jeremy Reynolds (Non Executive Director Ealing PCT)

Ideally would you also please send a copy of your response to the others listed above
and to me so that I can gauge the level of GPs’ response.

It is important that we target the decision makers.

Yours sincerely,

Sean Loudon

Chair of the Counselling Sub Group of the Mental Health LIT. I am also a service
user representative on the Mental Health Partnership Board.

Tel: 0208 840 2692

NB: The enclosed document has been endorsed by the “Ealing User Involvement
Service” who represent mental health service users in secondary care and the Carers’
representatives on both the Mental Health LIT and the Mental Health Partnership


The Council and the PCT are currently reviewing their grant funding. The term grant
as it applies to voluntary sector counselling services is misleading. These are jointly
commissioned services that have gone through a bidding process under the category
of “Mental Health”. They have service level agreements and are required to provide
quarterly monitoring data. They also receive yearly monitoring inspection visits from
the PCT.

Any cuts to the counselling budget will impact on GPs. The effects of past recessions
or periods of austerity are well known to GPs. The effect of the current period of
economic crisis on patients, their families and carers is already happening. The
economic situation and the resultant pressures on GPs are likely to get worse.

*The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has reported that “time off
work due to stress has risen in the past year”. The Institute said the recession was
blamed for the increased stress levels.
*Source: BBC. Website. 25 October 2010

The combined LBE/PCT grant budget for one to one counselling is only £151,000*
*Source: Shahara Miah, Mental Health commissioner, Ealing PCT

The total LBE/PCT “Health and Social Care” grant budget is £2,560,000*.
Counselling represents only 6% of the total budget. The combined total General
Grant and Health and Social Grant is £4.83 million*.
* Source: LBE Cabinet Report. 14 September 2010.

The following organisations receive grant funding for 1 to 1 counselling.

 Bereft (Bereavement counselling) £10K, Relate (Relationships) £12K, Asian Family
Counselling (Culturally appropriate and relationship counselling) £15K, Tasha
Foundation (Generic counselling) £26K, Anchor Counselling (Generic and culturally
appropriate counselling) £42k and Ealing Abbey Counselling Service (Medium to
long term counselling) £46K.

There is additional funding of £20K for group therapy.

These organisations do not operate in isolation. They either have their own areas of
expertise or they supplement the limited NHS provision of counselling. The PCT with
the support of the Wellbeing Service (NHS) and the voluntary sector has developed a
strategy of cross referrals and inter-organisation co-operation. The Wellbeing Service
(NHS) has also made counselling space available to some voluntary sector providers.

The importance of the voluntary sector to GPs is best illustrated by the following data:

The funded voluntary sector providers of one to one counselling currently provide a
total of approx. 12,000 sessions per year. *
*This figure is based on SLAs and monitoring data. It does not include groups.

The Wellbeing Service (NHS) currently provides 6,240 sessions* per year. *(Source L.
De Haro Clinical Lead, Oct. 2010).

The contribution that the voluntary sector providers make to the well being of the
community and the number of sessions they actually provide far exceeds the level of
grant they receive.

A high percentage of referrals to the voluntary sector are made either directly by GPs
or upon recommendation to patients from GPs (Ealing Abbey (60%), Anchor (60%),
Bereft (45%), Tasha (85%), Asian Family (24%), and Relate (30%)).

The Wellbeing Service (NHS) also refers patients on to voluntary sector providers.
Some of these referrals will have originated from GPs therefore the above figures
given may in some cases be significantly higher.

The Wellbeing Service (NHS) counselling division currently has very long waiting
lists due to the high level of referrals from GPs and self-referrals from the general
public. NAG 36 weeks, ACE 20 weeks and Southall 11 weeks*.
* (Source: L. De Haro, Clinical Lead. October, 2010).

The waiting lists of voluntary sector providers range from 3 to 8 weeks. Waiting
times will increase if funding is cut. Some projects may actually go out of business.
This at a time when demand for talking therapies is expected to increase due to the
worsening economic situation.

Some projects offer a weekly interim support service (phone or email support) for
those on the waiting list deemed to be in crisis. This facility will no longer be
available if the service has gone out of business.

The unit cost per counselling session provided by the voluntary sector is cheaper than
that of the statutory sector or private practice.

 However, the voluntary sector has not received any increase in funding since the last
commissioning round in 2007*. Taking into account the rate of inflation this already
represents a cut over the last 3 years.
* Source: Shahara Miah, Mental Health Commissioner, Ealing PCT.

Additional information

Government funding to the Wellbeing Service (NHS) is going to be reduced. The
counselling division could be affected. It is essential that we retain the current level of
provision at the Wellbeing Service (NHS) and the current limited funding available to
the voluntary sector.

There is very limited provision of talking therapies for patients under the care of
secondary services. “The CQC Mental Health Community Survey 2010” identified
that 62 % of respondents wanted talking therapy and that 84% of respondents who
had received talking therapy found it helpful.

23 out of the 45* suicides in Ealing January 2009 to July 2010 were due to either
relationship/financial or employment problems. *(Source Jane Burton, Suicide Information
Officer, NHS Ealing).

The Metanoia Institute has conducted research funded by the PCT, into the
effectiveness of Transactional Analysis and Integrative Counselling in GP surgeries in
the NAG area. The research used the same evaluation methods used within IAPT. The
outcomes indicate comparable outcomes to CBT within IAPT.

Some patients self refer directly to the voluntary sector rather than go through their
family GP when the presenting issue relates to domestic/sexual abuse, relationship or
financial problems. It is important that patients are still given this option.


Sean Loudon

Chair of the Counselling Sub Group of the Mental Health LIT. I am also a Service
User representative on the Mental Health Partnership Board.


Tel: 0208 840 2692                                                          29 October

Social Services
Stephen Day
Director of Adult Services
                                                                    Perceval House
Sean Loudon                                                         14-16 Uxbridge Road
Chair Counselling Sub Group                                         London W5 2HL
Mental Health LIT                                                          Tel: 020 8825 5000
                                                                    Fax: 020 8825 7741
By e-mail

Your ref:            my ref:              Please ask for:                     date:
                                                                              25th November 2010

Dear Sean

Re Future funding of counselling services

I have been copied into your recent e-mail correspondence with Councillor Anand
regarding the above. She has asked me to respond to you on her behalf.

We have spoken about this issue before and acknowledged that the current financial
climate is presenting challenging times for us all. However I appreciate the time you
have taken to highlight your concerns about this area of provision and would like to
take this opportunity of responding formally to you.

In your papers you refer to the report about voluntary sector funding that was
presented to Cabinet in September 2010. This outlined the process by which the
Council intends to manage the re-allocation of voluntary sector funding. It is worth
noting that a similar paper was also presented to NHS Ealing’s Resources and
Investment Committee. The key stages of the grants process which has been agreed
by both the Council and the NHS are as follows:

December 2010:        Report to Overview and Scrutiny Committee on the
                      proposed level of budgets, proposed grants priorities and
                      criteria, draft impact assessments
January 2011:         Report to Cabinet/NHS Ealing on proposed level of
                      budgets, proposed grants priorities and criteria, draft
                      impact assessments (Note that this report was previously
                      scheduled for December 2010)
Jan/Feb 2011          Consultation with voluntary sector on Cabinet proposals
April 2011            Report to Cabinet/NHS Ealing on outcome of consultation
                      seeking agreement on final budget levels and grants
                      criteria and approval to proceed with grants application
May/June 2011         Grants application process
July 2011             Decision on grants awards
October 2011          New grants commence

The above timetable is designed in such a way to involve others in assessing
the impact of any funding reductions. We are working in partnership with the
voluntary sector to achieve this. For example voluntary organisations have
been asked to complete questionnaires to help identify the impact of a 25-
35% reduction in their budget. There has also been a voluntary sector
conference at which the attached priorities paper was discussed.

You will see from the enclosed paper that counselling services remain a
priority within the health and social care grant. However, it is not appropriate
for us to agree to protect funding to counselling organisations before
assessing the impact of budget reductions across the whole range of

I do think you raise some relevant points in your paper eg the relationship
between the health and well being service and voluntary sector provision, and
that these warrant further discussion. I also note your reference to primary
care services. It is the impact of service users that is the main issue here,
although the views of GPs in this area are important. I am now involved in the
GP commissioning developments and can provide a link here. Jo Murfitt,
Director of Commissioning NHS Ealing, is also aware of the grants process.
Jeremy Reynolds, Non Executive Director NHS Ealing, is a member of a
Councillor led voluntary sector funding panel which has been established to
advise on the overall process. I trust that through these various channels we
will be able to take GPs views into account.

I know that you have regular contact with the mental health commissioning
team, however I have asked Rifit Hussain-Cutiss, Acting Mental Health
Commissioning Manager to meet with you separately to talk through all the
issues you raise in more detail. I would like to see if together we can identify
means of more co-ordinated and streamlined working which would minimise
the impact on service users.

I trust that this provides you with some more reassurance that we are
managing this process with the aim of achieving the best outcome for the
local community.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Day
Director of Adult Services

Cc     Cllr Anand, Portfolio Holder, Adult Services
       Rifit Hussain-Curtis Acting Mental Health Commissioning Manager

10 October 2012

To: Brendan Walsh & Nigel Fogg, LB Ealing Council
From: Steve Flynn, Acton Community Forum

Proposed Funding Cuts to VCS Services
Acton Community Forum is keenly aware of the need by LB Ealing to reduce expenditure due
to the Government’s position following the CSR. ACF is also aware that a good deal of
feedback has been coming from Ealing Community Network and elsewhere.

However, ACF feels there are certain overall points which are being overlooked in the current
process and wishes to raise these independently of other responses.

Adult Health & Social Care Grants
As far as ACF can ascertain, this budget is just under £2 million and was allocated last year to
31 groups in amounts ranging from £1,200 (Epilepsy Action) to £388k (across several grants
to Age Concern Ealing).

In fact by our calculations 67% of this budget goes to 8 local branches of large/national

Ethnic Alcohol Counselling in Hounslow (EACH)        107,000    Drug & Alcohol Health & Social Services
Age Concern Ealing                                   387,913    Health & Social Services - Older People
Age Concern Northolt                                  80,014    Health & Social Services - Older People
Alzheimer’s Concern Ealing                           162,593    Health & Social Services - Older People
Crossroads Care West London                           72,000    Health & Social Services - Older People
Southall Day Centres (Includes Milap)                228,620    Health & Social services - Older People
Ealing Mencap                                        190,000    Learning Disability Health & Social Svcs
Deaf Plus                                             84,000    Physical Disability Health & Social Care
Total                                              1,312,140

While we are aware that local branches claim to receive no support from their national HQs,
the fact is that they can reduce the impact of cuts through reliable sources:
     alternate income streams (e.g. charity shops et al.)
     name-brand recognition which greatly increases their fundraising abilities with
         members of the public and external funders
     much better placed to partner with other local branches for regional/national
     support funder-friendly beneficiaries/causes
     potentially have scope for their own in-house cost-cutting measures as charities with
         fairly extensive funding streams, staff, premises, et al.

None of the above can be said for local VCS organisations, particularly those serving BMER
and/or hard-to-reach communities.

ACF therefore believes these organisations should receive either first-round or greater cuts
than home-grown/grassroots Ealing organisations.

ACF further would argue that across-the-board cuts make poor financial sense in terms of
savings vs. service losses. A 35% cut to an organisation receiving £100k vs. one receiving
£10k results in the same level of service lost with exponentially different cost savings (e.g.
£35,000 vs. £3,500).

The ‘small change’ does not add up to significant savings when measured against loss in
services which will push vulnerable people back on to the state, whether to LBE statutory
services or long-term costs of benefit dependency, serious illness vs. preventative services, et

ACF would recommend the Council consider before making these cuts above the level of its
comparable own in-house frontline services:
    Prioritising small, grassroots local Ealing organisations over out-of-Borough and local
    Making tiered cuts based on grant size
    Reviewing total overall income from LBE as some receive hundreds of thousands of
      pounds across numerous strands while others receive only a few thousand
    Value for money review of services
    Cost per user vs. the Council’s
    Close examination of their EIAs and stated repercussions, including alternate income

Children & Young People’s Health & Social Care
This tranche funds 11 organisations providing a range of frontline services to users whose
needs cannot feasibly be prioritised behind any other Borough residents.

The total spend last year was £438k, from which a 35% cut equals £153k. In terms of the
savings LBE must make, this is a paltry amount, yet has great follow-on impact in terms of
driving these services’ users back to LBE’s own services.

ACF would recommend the Council consider before making these cuts above the level of its
comparable own in-house frontline services:
    Value for money review of these services
    Cost per user vs. the Council’s
    Close examination of their EIAs and stated repercussions

Community Grants
The proposal to save £214,900 from the Community Grants budget (following residue and
Age Concern Benefit Campaign savings) does not really seem commensurate with other
Council savings plans:
       Initial cuts of £133k by not renewing project grants is a 100% cut affecting 31 small
       Not recommissioning Community Cohesion makes a cut of £25k to Acton Community
        Forum and Southall Community Alliance respectively
       20% reduction of Holiday Grants by £10k seems hardly worthwhile given the extreme
        strain on that budget over the past few years and extremely small grants it has been
        able to provide
       The rest of the proposal gives extremely wide ranging cuts with little justification how
        these decisions have been made or under what criteria.

However, accepting the decisions to not renew project grants or Community Cohesion, the
resulting savings target is only £32k. It is the addition of £180k for additional advice and
domestic violence provision that promotes the needs for cuts of 19.42%-100% for Community
Grants to 9 organisations (ACF, Acton Homeless Concern, ECVS, ECT, Ealing Mediation
Service, PSLA, Medcliff Nursery, MECMAC and Somali Women’s Refugee Centre).

Unfortunately to spread the £212k new savings target equally (excluding Southall Black
Sisters) would mean making 40% cuts to these 9 grants, which is beyond even what is being
proposed in other strands.
ACF would support a value for money review and close review of EIAs as recommended for
other streams. It is worth noting that is ACF’s case combined ABG and Community Grant of
just over £57,000 towards core costs has resulted in a turnover of some £550,000.

Given the smaller number of organisations involved than with other streams perhaps a
negotiation meeting could be held to reach an amicable result.

London Councils recouped funding
There are 6 Ealing-based organisations contracted to deliver services under London
                                                 2010/11    expires
 Centre for Armenian Information & Advice          5,340    31/10/2012
 Empowering Action and Social Esteem (EASE)      200,000    31/03/2013
 Somali Youth Union in UK                         53,822    31/10/2012
 Southall Black Sisters Trust                     40,717    31/10/2012
 Southall Black Sisters Trust                     90,000    31/08/2012
 Southall Day Centre                              19,075    31/10/2012
 Southall Day Centre                              24,839    31/10/2012
 United Anglo Caribbean Society (UACS)            38,625    31/12/2011
 Total                                           472,418

Assuming a 60% repatriation and pro-rating UACS’ funding due to its expiry we calculate a
left over pot of £178k. There is also in our understanding a possibility of the SBS Trust
funding to move to the pan-London pot, which would free up a further £131k.

ACF would recommend that:
    All London Councils funds, being slated for VCS delivery previously, remain so
    Existing London Council projects delivered by Ealing-based organisations be formally
      earmarked to receive continued funding
    Any additional remaining funding beyond that be formally earmarked to offset
      inevitable upcoming cuts in ABG/ grants for Ealing-based VCS organisations
      particularly neighbourhood development and community cohesion.

                  London Borough of Ealing
          Draft Response by Ealing Mediation Service

In Ealing Council’s recent consultation paper containing initial proposals for
reductions in community grants (16-Nov-10), an option put forward under
section 5.2 is: “Delete grant to Ealing Mediation Service”.

In view of the further uncertainty associated with the possible withdrawal of
ABG funding, the paper accurately anticipates that if Ealing Council were to
exercise this option, the service is likely to become non-viable. As the paper
acknowledges, the wisdom of terminating the service depends upon the value
that mediation brings to the community safety agenda. For a number of
reasons, Ealing Mediation Service (EMS) believes the value that it delivers to
the community is cost-effective, wide-ranging and unique:

       EMS is a small operation that punches far above its weight. The
    service is delivered by a cadre of around 30 highly trained mediators and
    managed by a committee of up to 12 trustees who give freely of their time
    with no charge upon the public purse. It is supported by two key part-time
    employees operating from modest office accommodation in Greenford
    Community Centre; both are experienced and dedicated and they enjoy
    the greatest confidence of both clients and partners.

   EMS is a beacon of good practice. In its 14 year existence it has become
    one of the most respected services within the capital. It pioneered a new
    approach to mediation practice – the “All-in-one” model – that has
    delivered outstanding results for clients and referrers and has now been
    adopted by a number of other services. EMS has been approached to
    advise a number of other services on process and practice, having been
    one of the few community mediation services to achieve the CLS quality
    mark, and is a leading member of the London Community Mediation

   EMS is transparently effective. In addition to welcoming representation
    from funding bodies on its board (Ealing Homes has a valued Trustee on
    the Management Committee), it reports regularly and fully on its activities
    and assesses its impact. EMS Surveys of service satisfaction 2009/10
        o 93.75% of clients coped better/felt improvement after mediation
        o 93.2% of clients would recommend our service
        o 90% of clients found the mediation useful or better
        o 88.2% of clients found mediation successful
        o 100% of referrers found it useful or better to have our specific
           service available
        o 100% of referrers felt we saved them time and/or money
    In our most recent survey of Ealing Councillors (in 2009), our service was
    described by Councillors in the following ways: ‘Excellent’, ‘very good’,

    ‘good’, ‘very impressed/service is efficient’, ‘worthwhile’, ‘good concept’,
    ‘can work but sometimes issues have gone too far before they are
    referred’, ‘heard good things’, ‘good as I referred someone and they were
    happy with service’.

        EMS is committed to preventative action. As in a medical context, so
    in a social context; early intervention is seen as the only way to avoid an
    irritating complaint becoming an acute problem, with all the health, social
    and financial cost implications for the individual and for the wider
    community. A presentation by EMS to the ASB Scrutiny Panel this
    summer was met with an extremely positive response from members with
    feedback that preventative and early intervention measures, such as
    mediation, should form part of the Council’s ASB strategy. The Council’s
    latest residents’ survey showed that tackling ASB is residents’ highest
    priority in the majority of wards and mediation is an essential part of that
    toolkit, as demonstrated in the borough’s Community Safety Strategy
    which states that the local mediation service should be supported.

       EMS provides a service increasingly perceived as the essential and
    invaluable recourse of first choice in dispute resolution. The Lord
    Chancellor is proposing a reduction of £350 million in the Legal Aid
    budget. Accelerating an already evident trend, it is intended that
    mediation should invariably be the first port of call for all disputants –
    whatever their means; households in the borough would benefit from the
    retention of an already fully formed provider.

      EMS is a high profile asset to the local community in general and, not
    least, to its most vulnerable members. This is comprehensively
    demonstrated in our extensive contribution to the Equality Impact
    Assessment Survey recently conducted by Ealing Council. Our monitoring
    shows that in 2009/10 of those EMS clients who chose to disclose
    personal data:
       o 58% were female
       o 67% were from black & minority ethnic communities
       o 26% were age 65+
       o 33% had a disability or debilitating health problem
       o 61% were from public sector housing

       EMS is a valued partner of Ealing Homes in particular and plays a key
    role in contributing to the well being and harmony of its tenants. As Ealing
    Homes embarks on its transition from an arms-length to an in-house
    operation, EMS will seek to ensure the maintenance of that harmony in
    changed circumstances. Ealing Homes’ ASB Team Manager has advised
    us ‘I think there's a good deal of evidence as to how EMS provides
    excellent value for money - the costs saved by freeing up council
    caseworkers' time and legal costs are the two big areas I would
    identify… EMS is excellent value for money’.

     EMS works intimately with the Community Safety Team, Environmental
    Health and the local police, and plays a key role in their strategies for

    dealing with neighbour/community conflict. The Council’s Head of
    Community Safety has advised us 'EMS has demonstrated, through its
    transparent monitoring, clear reporting, true success stories and openness
    to partnership building, that it is a cost effective component in the
    preventative toolkit for tackling ASB and improving
    communication/understanding within local communities. EMS is well
    respected by its partners and has a proven track record of saving referrers
    time and/or money by alleviating pressure on their services and preventing
    unnecessary escalation of neighbour disputes/conflicts to a point where
    costly legal action is required’. The Council’s Anti-Social Behaviour Co-
    ordinator & Legal Advisor has advised us ‘Where it (mediation) is used, I
    have found in my own experience that it has proved to be very effective.
    You will be aware that the Ealing Homes ASB teams will be brought back
    in to the local authority …. as a result of this, I would expect that our
    involvement with your service will increase’. Local police have advised us
    through feedback forms that ‘(EMS is) providing an essential service,
    offering time and advice that sometimes the police cannot do’, ‘this is an
    excellent way of dealing with low level nuisance cases – keep up the great
    service you provide for us’, ‘this case was ideal for mediation as the police
    could do nothing further to help the people involved’. Regulatory Services’
    staff advise us ‘I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your
    help with the cases I have referred over the last few months, the service
    has been very helpful’.

       EMS is the only service within the borough providing community
    mediation – free at the point of delivery and incurring extraordinarily
    modest operational costs. No other organisation in the borough, voluntary
    or statutory, has the relevant knowledge, expertise, independence and
    impartiality to provide and deliver such a service.

For all these reasons, we believe that the London Borough of Ealing needs
the service that EMS provides and that this need will only increase in the
turbulent times ahead. We provide a large service at a small cost. That cost
is already tightly controlled and we would be loath to see the contribution from
the London Borough of Ealing pared – let alone withheld.


This case was referred by Ealing Police and was also known to Community
Safety. It had started when there had been a conflict between two teenage
children and there were allegations that a weapon had been brandished. The
conflict had escalated to involve the two families, from two different areas of
the borough, both of which were large Somali families with respected
community leaders at the helm, so there was concern that the conflict could
escalate further and affect the wider Somali community.
Both families were interviewed separately by two of our experienced
mediators and they clearly identified which members of each family would be
conducive to take part in a joint mediation session. We followed up with two
joint mediation sessions, involving the parents (including the heads of the
households) and the teenage children involved, and a full agreement was
reached between the two families.
We monitored the case over the subsequent three months, offering the
teenage children the opportunity of a joint mediation without their parents
present if they so wished, but this proved unnecessary as the matter was
resolved to their satisfaction and communication between the two families had

This case was referred by Ealing Police, having been called out on numerous
occasions to the same street regarding car parking issues. There had been
accusations of physical violence between some of the residents. Seven
households were referred to us and we had communication with each of
them. Subsequently two of our experienced mediators met with five of the
households in two separate meetings and then with representatives from the
local Safer Neighbourhood Team, Parking Enforcement and Highways.
The mediators decided that in order to make positive progress there needed
to be a shuttle mediation involving residents and officers and this was
arranged by us and involved a great deal of logistics. Unfortunately, on the
day, Parking Enforcement did not attend but four households took part
together with the Police and Highways and a plan of action was agreed which
has resulted with residents and officers working together and proposals for
works to bring about resolution are being brought to a future Ward Forum
which are being monitored.

This case was referred by Ealing Police, having been called out on numerous
occasions to two households in a house converted into two flats. The case
was also known to Community Safety. Both residents were deemed to be
vulnerable and were tenants of a housing association. One tenant was
convinced that the other was deliberately causing noise nuisance which they
It became clear when two of our experienced mediators visited that there was
no deliberate noise nuisance but there were insulation problems and the
landlord had not carried out promised works to the premises.

The mediators then facilitated a joint mediation meeting involving both
tenants, the police officer who referred the case and the housing officer
responsible for the property.
A plan of action was agreed, including an agreement between the tenants
regarding behaviour and action by the housing officer. The case was
monitored for three months and as a result sound insulation was improved
and the matter resolved, thereby preventing unnecessary further callouts on
police time.

                      SOUTHALL BLACK SISTERS
 Response to the London Borough of Ealing Consultation on Funding Priorities
   for the Community and Voluntary Sector (Consultation Document dated

With respect to domestic violence services, funding decisions should be based on the
following principles:

   1. Current domestic violence services should be a priority and continued to be
      fully funded, particularly specialist services for black and minority women and
      children as they meet the needs of a vulnerable high risk and hard to reach
      group which experience linguistic, economic, social, racial, cultural and
      religious barriers in accessing mainstream services. Many of the domestic
      violence related homicides and suicides that have occurred in the last three
      decades in the borough have involved largely South Asian and middle Eastern

   2. Any new domestic violence services should be financed by extra funding as
      proposed in the consultation, and should address issues raised in the domestic
      violence research commissioned by the Ealing Domestic Violence Task

   3. Services should address needs and promote equality within the borough. In
      particular, the needs of black and minority women, whose experience overlap
      a series of inequality indicators such as race, gender, age, poverty, sexuality
      and mental health. Such services should be prioritised and addressed. Please
      refer to our response to the Equality Impact Assessment, which highlights the
      needs and equality issues with reference to black and minority women and
      children experiencing abuse within the London Borough of Ealing.

   4. Any money repatriated to Ealing Council from London Councils should be
      ring fenced for groups already funded by London Councils to continue to
      provide essential front line services in the borough. This will ensure continuity
      of service and enhance local provision.

Southall Black Sisters
6 December 2010

From Homestart Ealing

Dear Nigel,

I would like to put forward some points to you in regard to the funding cuts proposed by LBE.

As you are aware Home-Start Ealing currently receives a grant from The Childrens Health and
Social care funding.
While I appreciate some cuts are unavoidable it does concern me that the new draft policies
state Lower threshold family support would cease to be funded, surely it is obvious that if
these families are not supported many will end up more vulnerable and possibly under the
care of social services which in the long term will cost LBE alot more money.
As stated Ealing has introduced new services that are preventative such as SAFE, while I
believe they are a fantastic service they do make many referrals to us as do Coram and Social
services. This shows the need for our service offering long term support to families.

During the meeting where the draft funding priorities were discussed, I was told that Home-
Start Ealing were mentioned specifically, with regard to not funding us anymore. I feel this is
hugely unfair and does give the impression decisions have already been made.

The voluntary organisations save LBE huge ammounts of money, we offer excellent value for
money by providing support and services through volunteers which in effect are free, surely it
is clear that if these services are unable to continue a short term gain will cost alot more in
the long term to both the residents of Ealing as well as LBE's funds.

Best wishes

Louise Chamberlain
Scheme Manager
Home-Start Ealing

From Maggie Wilson in response to Hometstart’s queries

26 November 2010

Good afternoon,

The proposal is to target funding from health and social care grant at families with higher levels of need.

The lower levels of need would be met from within services such as Children's Centres which work with families with
young children as does Homestart.

This would mean funding would be in place for early intervention work provided by a range of services with services
operating at different thresholds and levels of need and with the overall aim of preventing escalation to services such
as children's social care.

An earlier draft of the children's health and social care priorities paper said that the services currently provided by a
range of providers - including Homestart - would be affected.

However, it was never the intention to exclude any organisation from bidding for funding in relation to one of the
new priorities.

I took the mention of specific organisations out of the revised version of the priorities document that was considered
at the voluntary sector conference.

I did this as I thought it would cause confusion.

Homestart will of course be able to apply for funding - the difference would be an expectation that work that is
funded would be focussed on higher need families.

The use of trained volunteers - which is central to Homestart's approach - is a cost effective way to provide a

Finally, my hope and expectation is that Homestart will apply for funding in the new funding round.

With kind regards



To top