CC(3) VS22

Age Concern Swansea

Response to Call for evidence on funding for Voluntary Organisations

Background

We are particularly pleased to respond, as we have extensive experience of the issue.  Since 1989, we have been delivering local services to older people, and staff members have previously held senior posts in other charities so we have a breadth of real experience.

The charity currently raises and spends nearly £1 million on care and support to approximately 9,500 over 50 year olds every year, with 9 community projects that aim to enable older people to stay well and in their own homes for as long as possible.  We work in close partnership with all relevant local agencies and providers (approx 70 at present) including informing planning structure of needs of local residents.

The role of the organisation and the services it delivers are now established as an essential and significant part of the jigsaw of health and social care for older people.

Board of Trustees (9), Staff (50) and Volunteers (150) work with care and dedication mostly face to face, meeting clients’ individual needs.  We monitor and constantly review current work and develop new projects, for example a Toe Nail Cutting Service (Podiatry) was established in May 07.

Our major sources of income are Local Authority, Supporting People and Local Health Board, which account currently for 74% of whole income.  Staff costs (including volunteering) are responsible for 64% of whole expenditure. If we are given the funding,

• We deliver high quality services as we are close to our clients and responsive to their needs

• We act as the specialists for the over 50s - well informed and proven deliverers of effective, measured outcomes

• Our work is 'not for profit’ so it is low cost, and all funding is utilised or reinvested into services.

Our Response

1.  Funding from Welsh Assembly / National Bodies

Answer: very, very difficult

1.1. Age Concern is a Specific Situation As a local independent constituted City and County of Swansea charity, we cannot ask the W.A.G. directly for money.  Funding for Age Concern Cymru is for their work at the All Wales level; they don’t work in the counties of Wales or provide direct services to older people in the community.

1.2.   Local Age Concerns need the Assembly Government’s recognition that they are a major deliverer of essential services to older people in their communities.  Continued lack of funding will result in many older people living in poverty, isolation and in inappropriate housing.

1.3. The population is ageing and there is a documented lack of younger people moving into the caring professions.  Without active and well- funded voluntary groups (who often work with volunteers who are older, skilled and able), older people will suffer from a lack of low level preventative work. This gap will then have huge financial implications for the future NHS, and will also mean that older people’s level of need may move to critical/substantial and will therefore need expensive Social Services and health input.

1.4. Our Local Experience

1). We were aware of 06/07 WAG initiative to increase take up of Council Tax Benefit so approached local authority for a share of their funding.  We work in close partnership, but through different methods, as we do home visits to older people and they are often more confident in approaching us for advice as a non-statutory body.

This was approved (£4,000) and very successful - contributing to our total gain of £2,700,000 in Welfare Benefits for local residents.

We were very disappointed when we wrote to the Minister, to hear the money would not be available for the next year as this joint approach had vital and positive measurable results.

2). We have worked locally in Partnership to bid for WAG funds.  One superb example is 'Inequalities in Health’ where we worked with NHS Trust/Social Services/LHB to gain significant funding for a major Hospital Discharge Project.  This has gone from strength to strength with its own Senior Nurses, Social Worker, Benefits Officer, offering full assessment of patient medical health and social needs and assisting with 'living at home needs’ such as basic meal preparation, dog walking or basic cleaning.

This could be an excellent way forward; however there haven’t been any opportunities to do joint bids.

1.5.   We suggest that WAG could have 'good practice’ explicit in their giving funding to Local Authorities/LHB etc - that voluntary organisations must be involved as partners - making documents such as the Beecham Review and Making the Connections a reality.

2.  Ease or Difficulty of Complying with Constraints or Conditions on Funding

Answer: difficult - dependent on funder requirements

2.1.   Many Grant Making Trusts/smaller funders have clear straightforward targets and requirements for monitoring and evaluation.  These are planned into the project and are easy to deliver, for example Lloyds TSB.

2.2. Others, for example Supporting People, are literally a 'nightmare’.

Example

There are standard requirements for all contracts, but our low level preventative work, which we signed the contract for, does not fit.  To meet ever-increasing demands from WAG for information, we have had to employ more administrative staff; formalise the work with clients for all recording, mapping, new policies and procedures etc.  Spend extra time on computer reports etc etc.  

Luckily we have a superb relationship with the local authority team who fully respect our role and have given extra financial support.  

There are issues around our Independence when we are asked, for example - only suggest visiting hairdressers, tradesmen etc that have had CRB checks - this is not practicable and affects our judgments/partnerships.

2.3. Financial: when funding is agreed, an uplift should be written in or expected; this is not always the practice.  When local authority is over budget and makes cuts, there is no uplift, leading to a major problem for voluntary organisations.  We have been prudent with past income so can sometimes cover the shortfall - but if staff don’t have an annual uplift, they have to look for better posts, feel unsettled etc, and this can have a further cost implication through recruitment processes.

Example

Unexpected costs/charges to expenditure by external demands e.g. Agenda for Change and Social Work staff pay increases. Social Work staff increases have seriously impacted on the financial management of our Hospital Discharge Project, by eating heavily into non-increasing budget.

3.  Issues relating to duration/timing of Funding

Answer: very difficult

3.1. We live with this short-term structure but it is not conducive to good value, or effective support in communities.

3.2.  We are happy to have 3 year pilot project funding - however once a good project is in place, effective, value for money, meeting needs etc, no-one wants to fund it.

Example

We have a Community Services Manager who underpins and oversees management of 6 home visiting projects.  He is on a 3 year funding from City and County of Swansea (Compact) for which we are hugely grateful however in March 08 the funding finishes.  We don’t even know if there will be a Compact opportunity next year, let alone, if we can apply or if we’ll be successful.  Other funders we have tried have not proved successful.

3.3. In comparison, the longer term Supporting People Project is producing excellent outcomes; robust delivery; well trained staff doing their NVQs; consistency in the monitoring and most importantly older people have their expectations met of a reliable effective service!

3.4. Timing is vital.  We abide by application dates then often the results are not known when expected, throwing planning out of the window.  Everyone in any organisation is driven now by time demands; it is only fair that those providing funds, act responsibly.  Being aware of funding application outcomes means that service delivery is not hindered and new developments to meet current needs can be considered.

4.  Other Relevant Comments

4.1. Major issue is Core funding; it is pivotal to a successful organisation.  The world of the Voluntary Sector has changed and we have 18 agencies we are legally responsible to; we have a list of approximately 60 policies to be written and implemented; there are increasingly complex Human Resources issues and legal acts etc etc etc.  

A regular amount of guaranteed core income allows voluntary organisations to develop, build on extra projects and plan ahead! We do a Full Cost Recovery (for which we are grateful for the support of the Assembly) and have had enormous 3-year sponsorship from Barclays Bank.  However there is no funding available to maintain this essential part of our organisation.

There are high expectations of our role as Public Sector Service deliverers but without any of the funding for strengthening staff development that is being given in England, for example Future Builders.

Examples

Volunteering Management. We have a part time Volunteering Manager who recruits, screens, matches, inducts, retains, trains 150 volunteers.  Because it is well proven; non innovative, we cannot fund this vital post.  Currently awaiting outcome of Volunteering in Wales application.

Training and personal development management for staff and volunteers also requires significant organisation and administration capacity. We are immensely proud this year of staff who have obtained their NVQ levels 2, 3 and 4; however, the cost of enabling and supporting staff, liaising with colleagues etc for it to happen was not funded.

Community Service Management. As mentioned in 3.2 above, the funding for this post finishes in March and it will be very difficult to deliver the quality front-line services without this infrastructure support.

4.2. Links between WAG/Local Authorities Agendas and Priorities and the funding to meet these: there needs to be much closer links between the agreed agendas, and the opportunities for funding of successful projects with proven outcomes, as well as funding for new services.  We have the expertise to overcome problem issues and agreed priorities, but there is no funding for ongoing services.

Example

Pensioner Anti-Poverty Work. Currently there is no funding for services to meet individual needs.

Our project over the last 15 years has produced excellent, consistent, evidenced success - currently 2-5 staff and 15 volunteers annual gain for Swansea pensioners in all Welfare Benefits = £2,700,000 in 2006/7. We have failed to achieve funding!  This will possibly result in continued poverty for many older people in Swansea due to lack of assistance.

4.3. Proven Well Evidenced Successful, Projects do not Attract Funding. Funding opportunities are always about seeking new ideas, but many organisations have been working for some time and know what good practice models and methodology works.  It is heart breaking to stop a project that is providing a vital service.

Example

'Lifeline Telephone Friends’ - Part time staff and volunteers were funded to visit older people with Community Alarm Telephones.  They made sure the unit was working/batteries were OK/clients were trained and comfortable to use the units.    Also a holistic assessment was completed with work carried out on housing problems/income maximisation/advice and information on Health and Social Welfare. Funding was withdrawn to support another equally important generalist project.  Yet we know this service was vital to assist the hard to reach vulnerable isolated older people and improve their lives, and keep them safe.

4.4.  External Impact on Contracts - As in Question 2, the financial impact of no annual uplift or unexpected staff costs, outside our control, for example Agenda for Change for our Nurses and Social Worker professional agreements eating a higher percentage of the budget.

4.5. The Prevention Agenda. Although this is recognised as important in both national and local agendas, it is very vulnerable when financial cuts are required. Our work is mainly for clients who do not meet Statutory level requirements and is mostly preventative and maintenance work - keeping people well.  When there are budget constraints - for example, possible Supporting People redistribution - it is these projects that may be on the closure list rather than the higher level, legally required work. This acts directly against the Beecham Report preventative agendas, the Social Services strategy and many other WAG strategies.

4.6.  Financial Reserves - Currently there is a conflict about the amount we need in reserves as stated by Charity Commission, in order to be in a strong position of covering funding if project fails, for example redundancies, leases, pension commitments etc.  Unfortunately, recent bids to Funders have failed as they see our reserves as too high!

4.7. Larger joint bids for European and WAG funding are now becoming expected for public service delivery. This puts independent local organisations at a disadvantage as they need time and skills to establish partnership agreements ready for tendering. The capacity building funds available under Axis 4 of the Rural Development Fund needs to be replicated for health and social care.

Example

Funding for I.M.C. advocates: as this was across three counties, and at short notice, we were unable to bid even when the three Age Concern county organisations had the skills necessary to deliver this specialist service.