OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE.doc
Document Sample
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.
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\5b37320d-87b9-4e4f-91ca-a5b4e9f27805.doc
EALING VOLUNTARY SECTOR FUNDING REDUCTIONS
REPORT OF THE CONSULTATIVE CONFERENCE ORGANISED BY LBE, ECN AND NHS
EALING ON 22 NOVEMBER 2010
In total 115 delegates attended. The full list of delegates who signed in is at
Appendix A
PRESENTATIONS
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
foggn@ealing.gov.uk
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\5b37320d-87b9-4e4f-91ca-a5b4e9f27805.doc
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
WORKSHOP DISCUSSION NOTES
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
analysis
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\5b37320d-87b9-4e4f-91ca-a5b4e9f27805.doc
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
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\5b37320d-87b9-4e4f-91ca-a5b4e9f27805.doc
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
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\5b37320d-87b9-4e4f-91ca-a5b4e9f27805.doc
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
use
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.
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\5b37320d-87b9-4e4f-91ca-a5b4e9f27805.doc
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)
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\5b37320d-87b9-4e4f-91ca-a5b4e9f27805.doc
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
NEXT STEPS
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)
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\5b37320d-87b9-4e4f-91ca-a5b4e9f27805.doc
THANKS TO
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)
APPENDIX A- ATTENDEES
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
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\5b37320d-87b9-4e4f-91ca-a5b4e9f27805.doc
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
Hamilton-
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
Mohammad
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
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\5b37320d-87b9-4e4f-91ca-a5b4e9f27805.doc
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
APPENDIX B- INDIVIDUAL POST IT NOTES
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
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\5b37320d-87b9-4e4f-91ca-a5b4e9f27805.doc
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
cycle
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:
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\5b37320d-87b9-4e4f-91ca-a5b4e9f27805.doc
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
existence.
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.
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\5b37320d-87b9-4e4f-91ca-a5b4e9f27805.doc
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
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\5b37320d-87b9-4e4f-91ca-a5b4e9f27805.doc
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)
Jasbir.anand@ealing.gov.uk
Councillor Shital Manro (Chair of Scrutiny Committee LBE)
Shital.manro@ealing.gov.uk
Stephen Day (Director of Adult Services LBE)
days@ealing.gov.uk
Dr Jeremy Reynolds (Non Executive Director Ealing PCT)
Eal-pct.pbc@nhs.net
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
Seanloudon1942@tiscali.co.uk
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
Board.
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\5b37320d-87b9-4e4f-91ca-a5b4e9f27805.doc
LBE AND PCT REVIEW OF GRANT FUNDING TO
VOLUNTARY SECTOR PROVIDERS OF COUNSELLING
SERVICES
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:
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\5b37320d-87b9-4e4f-91ca-a5b4e9f27805.doc
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.
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\5b37320d-87b9-4e4f-91ca-a5b4e9f27805.doc
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.
Seanloudon1942@tiscali.co.uk
Tel: 0208 840 2692 29 October
2010
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\5b37320d-87b9-4e4f-91ca-a5b4e9f27805.doc
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
process
May/June 2011 Grants application process
July 2011 Decision on grants awards
October 2011 New grants commence
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\5b37320d-87b9-4e4f-91ca-a5b4e9f27805.doc
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
services.
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
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\5b37320d-87b9-4e4f-91ca-a5b4e9f27805.doc
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
organisations:
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
tenders/commissions
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.
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\5b37320d-87b9-4e4f-91ca-a5b4e9f27805.doc
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
al.
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
branches
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
possibilities
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
organisations.
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).
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\5b37320d-87b9-4e4f-91ca-a5b4e9f27805.doc
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
Councils:
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.
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\5b37320d-87b9-4e4f-91ca-a5b4e9f27805.doc
London Borough of Ealing
PROPOSED FUNDING PRIORITIES FOR VOLUNTARY AND
COMMUNITY SECTOR SERVICES
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
Council.
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
confirm:
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’,
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\5b37320d-87b9-4e4f-91ca-a5b4e9f27805.doc
‘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
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\5b37320d-87b9-4e4f-91ca-a5b4e9f27805.doc
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.
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\5b37320d-87b9-4e4f-91ca-a5b4e9f27805.doc
EMS – THREE RECENT CASE STUDIES
1) COMMUNITY CONFLICT AFFECTING FAMILIES
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
improved.
2) PARKING ISSUES AFFECTING WHOLE STREET
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.
3) NOISE NUISANCE
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
denied.
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.
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\5b37320d-87b9-4e4f-91ca-a5b4e9f27805.doc
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.
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\5b37320d-87b9-4e4f-91ca-a5b4e9f27805.doc
SOUTHALL BLACK SISTERS
Response to the London Borough of Ealing Consultation on Funding Priorities
for the Community and Voluntary Sector (Consultation Document dated
16/11/10)
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
women.
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
Group.
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
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\5b37320d-87b9-4e4f-91ca-a5b4e9f27805.doc
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
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\5b37320d-87b9-4e4f-91ca-a5b4e9f27805.doc
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
service.
Finally, my hope and expectation is that Homestart will apply for funding in the new funding round.
With kind regards
Maggie
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\5b37320d-87b9-4e4f-91ca-a5b4e9f27805.doc
