Skip to main content

Voices blog > Page 10

The following blog was originally published on Clinks Blogs  by Jessica Mullen

The Lammy Review is an independent review into the treatment of, and outcomes for black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) individuals in the criminal justice system.  Published last month, the significant race inequalities in our criminal justice system were once again highlighted.

Over the party conference season Clinks held two roundtable events at both Labour and Conservative Conferences, supported by Barrow Cadbury Fund, to discuss the Review’s findings and recommendations. This blog is the first in a series of blogs following on from those events. Each week an attendee at one of the roundtables will write about their reflections on the review and what they plan to do in response to it. Keep an eye out for future blogs from David Lammy MP, Kate Green MP, Shaun Bailey AM, and PCC Paddy Tipping amongst others.

What did we hear?

David Lammy MP spoke at both roundtable events. At the Labour conference he was joined by the Shadow Secretary of State for Justice Richard Burgon MP, and at the Conservative conference Sam Gymiah MP, Minister for Prisons and Probation. Members of Parliament, Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) and voluntary sector organisations from across the country attended both meetings.

Discussion at both events was lively and interesting with real commitment across politicians and the voluntary sector to undertake action to finally redress racial disproportionality in the criminal justice system. Police and Crime Commissioners highlighted the role they can play in instigating local action.

What can the voluntary sector can do to support Lammy’s recommendations? Discussion of the importance of BAME organisations, which are rooted in the lived experience of the people they are working with, contrasted starkly with the finding from Clinks latest state of the sector survey which found that these organisations are 30% more likely to be at risk of closure. So the fact that the Review draws attention to probation supply chains failing to tap into the expertise of BAME voluntary sector organisations was welcomed.

There was also recognition from larger voluntary sector organisations around the table that they must also play their part in ensuring that government now acts on David Lammy’s recommendations and make sure they lead by example within their own work.

According to the Review data is not consistently collected across the system and David Lammy’s recommendations on this, as well as those aimed at ensuring that data is properly understood and acted upon, were welcomed.

Both events raised the glaring disproportionality in the youth justice system and the potential for diversion schemes such as deferred prosecution, currently being piloted in West Midlands and Durham, also highlighted by the Review.

Participants welcomed the Review’s recognition of the multifaceted nature of the BAME category and the specific needs of particular groups within it, such as Gypsy, Traveller and Roma people or people of Muslim faith. The Review’s exploration of how being from a BAME background and in contact with the criminal justice system intersects with other issues such as gender, complex needs and family links and support was also welcomed.

There was a strong feeling from participants that the Review’s recommendations be considered alongside other Ministry of Justice work including  developing a female offenders strategy and responding to the Farmer Review into support for family links.

The Review’s focus on trust was welcomed, as was the need to remove the ‘us and them’ culture in the criminal justice system by improving the  workforce diversity, alongside a call to ensure that all staff are ‘culturally competent’.

What next?

There is of course so much more in David Lammy’s Review, including his recommendations for the courts, prison system and criminal records regime. However, there was a real feeling in the room that this was just the beginning of the conversation.

David Lammy was clear that he is committed to this agenda for the long term. Local and national politicians from both sides of the political divide were keen to continue to engage, discuss and work with voluntary sector partners and others to take action to finally begin to address the poorer outcomes faced by BAME people in our criminal justice system.

Clinks looks forward to publishing the reflections of other attendees at the events over the coming weeks and to working with our members and policy makers, politicians and criminal justice agencies to identify action and good practice that can drive change and improve equality in our criminal justice system.

Read Clinks statement on its findings and recommendations here.  A full briefing on the report will be available soon.

Jamie Evans, Research Associate at the Personal Finance Research Centre, University of Bristol, posted this blog originally on the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute website.  We are very grateful to them for allowing us to cross-share it below.

While the title above may sound ominous, greater sharing of data between financial firms could bring benefits to creditors and consumers alike – especially where customers in vulnerable situations are concerned.

This is something that I and my colleagues at the Personal Finance Research Centre (PFRC) are exploring in our latest research project, which has kindly been supported by the Barrow Cadbury Trust.

Sharing can be difficult

This may seem counterintuitive but the reason I think this subject is so important is because sharing – on a person-to-person level – is something that can be incredibly difficult to do.

Every day, hundreds, if not thousands, of people face really tough conversations with their creditors. They might need to disclose the death of a loved one, or reveal that they are living with a serious mental health condition which will severely affect their finances.

For many people, sharing such information is draining – no matter how kind, polite and empathetic the person at the other end of the phone line is.

After putting the phone down, the last thing that most people will want to do is to immediately repeat the conversation with one of their other creditors, and then probably another one after that.

Sharing data could be much easier

So rather than having multiple, similar conversations with different creditors – which can be difficult and time-consuming – what if the first creditor that you speak to could simply notify all of the others that you need to deal with?

They needn’t share information about the precise nature of your situation, but they could at least let others know what additional support you might need. This would ensure that all firms that you deal with are in a better position to support you with whatever you’re going through.

In a world of near-instantaneous data transfer, this is theoretically possible – though of course we need to explore the practicalities of doing this and, crucially, need to ask ourselves whether the potential benefits outweigh the costs and possible risks.

How could data sharing work in practice?

The Government’s ‘Tell Us Once’ service, which allows individuals to report a birth or death to most government organisations in one go, offers one possible example as to what such data sharing could look like from a consumer’s perspective.

A service like this offered by financial firms might go down well, especially when multiple firms have similar processes that are time-consuming and potentially upsetting (for example, when registering a death or Power of Attorney).

In time, such a service could be developed to deal with a wider range of customer circumstances.

Of course, describing how such a scheme would work at the ‘front end’ is one thing; saying how it would work at the ‘back end’ is quite another. There are many practical questions to consider: should organisations share information directly with one another, or should it be shared via a third-party database? If so, who manages this database and how do organisations get access to the data?

Then there is the question of how organisations can align the way they record information to make it suitable for sharing in the first place. Thankfully, on this point, financial firms can learn lessons from the electricity sector, which is currently aligning its ‘needs codes’ to improve sharing of information.

What are the risks of data sharing?

While there are potential benefits to data sharing, there are also risks that need to be carefully managed:

  • Customers could lose control of their data. This control is vital if consumers are to trust the service.
  • Firms could make mistakes if information isn’t recorded in a sufficiently clear, consistent or detailed way.
  • Consumers could be inadvertently excluded from financial services because of their situation.
  • Unscrupulous firms could exploit vulnerable consumers, e.g. by carrying out aggressive marketing or targeting them at certain times.

‘A problem shared is a problem halved’

There are clearly many issues to consider here, from the practicalities and costs to the question of what level of data sharing – if any – consumers would be comfortable with.

We are exploring such issues throughout the course of our research, beginning with a review of the available evidence, possible models, and the legal and regulatory frameworks.

Then, in the spirit of the old saying ‘a problem shared is a problem halved’, we’ll be engaging with as many experts as we possibly can. This, we hope, will allow us to produce a blueprint for a model of data-sharing that genuinely works both for firms and their customers.

Katharine Sacks-Jones, Director of Agenda, and Donna Covey, Director of AVA (Against Violence and Abuse) blog about next steps for the Mapping the Maze project.  This blog was originally published on the Agenda website.

Services for the most marginalised and vulnerable women are scarce and increasingly under threat.

This is something that, working in the women’s sector, we already know.

We know this from our conversations with professionals who are working with women and are struggling to maintain services against smaller and smaller budgets.

We know this from the women themselves, whose lives are difficult enough, who jump hurdle after hurdle to access basic support or are left sitting on waiting lists for months. When help finally arrives, it fails to meet their specific needs. So they begin again, trying to find their way out of a system that often sets them up to fail.

What Mapping the Maze, the new project by AVA and Agenda, enables us to do is back-up women’s voices and their accounts of the challenges they face, with a geographical and numerical picture of the reality on the ground.

It aimed to find out what support was available to women experiencing multiple disadvantage who may be at risk of homelessness, substance misuse, poor mental health, offending and those who have more complex needs.

It shows that support specifically for women is not good enough. There are not enough services and provision is patchy across the country. A woman’s ability to access a service depends very much on where she lives – in some areas there is a range of services, in others there appears to be none at all.

In only 19 areas of England and Wales – out of 173 – can women access services that address all of the following issues: substance misuse, mental health, homelessness, offending for women and complex needs.

More mixed services may be available – but many of these will not cater for the specific needs and experiences of women.

That is because women experience multiple disadvantage in different ways to men. In particular they are more likely to have histories of extensive abuse and violence, the trauma impacting the course of their lives. The support they get needs to take this into account.

Therefore, mixed services are often not appropriate and can even be unsafe for women. For example, homeless and substance misuse services are often dominated by men – some of whom will be abusers – which at the very least can be intimidating for women and at worst, dangerous. That is why women-only support is so important.

Another challenge highlighted by Mapping the Maze is that most services only address single issues like substance misuse or mental health. If a woman does not fit the narrow parameters getting onto the service requires, she can be passed around a range of different services, none of them quite meeting her needs, leaving her unable to address the full range of challenges she faces.

That is not to say good services do not exist – they do. There are many organisations across the country doing fantastic work under challenging circumstances.

For Mapping the Maze, we spoke to a number of professionals working with women. They told us that they are being asked to provide more for less and are under pressure to hit targets that do not take account of the incremental, smaller gains that put women on a long-term path to rebuilding their lives.

We also consulted with women themselves, who told us what they wanted from service. They valued feeling safe in caring women-only environments where they are heard and understood, have support that is flexible and accessible and does not feel rushed.

Government, commissioners and service providers need to better respond to what women want and improve commissioning and services to reflect their needs.

Mapping the Maze provides evidence to back up the reports of professionals and women in the sector of the need for significant improvements and investment in support, with a focus on women-only and trauma-informed care.

We need central government to take the lead on this so that women facing multiple disadvantage – wherever they live – have a chance of making a new future for themselves and their families.

Find out more about Mapping the Maze

 

A new fund hits the circuit

The Connect Fund was born this spring. The fourth young fund in the Access Foundation stable, it has slowly found its legs, teetered around the field, and poked its nose into the social investment market. The initial task was to map and consult with many social investment actors to design the new social investment infrastructure fund. We left no stone unturned.

By mid-June, the Connect Fund was ready for its first outing, and debuted to much fanfare. The fund’s stated purpose is to ‘build a better social investment market’ to ensure that small to medium sized charities and social enterprises – that make up the bulk of the social sector – access the right kind of repayable finance to advance their mission.

Dazzling debut with daring debate

A diverse crowd of over 95 people gathered at the Foundry in Vauxhall to hear about the Connect Fund. Its stated objectives are to fill gaps in the architecture of the current social investment market, and to better connect existing voluntary sector infrastructure organisations to social investment.

An engaging debate on the state of social investment took off at the starting gate. Steve Wyler, a trustee of Access, quoted Responsible Finance figures to make the argument that social investment isn’t working. Jeremy Rogers, Chief Investment Officer at Big Society Capital, pointed out that £306m of ‘risk capital’ non-bank investments were made in 2016, including unsecured lending, community shares, charity bonds, social impact bonds, equity and social property funds. David Floyd from Social Spider, followed up with a blog to make sense of it all.

Place your bets

Next up was the first round call for Expressions of Interest (EOI) for grant funding, which ran from June to early July. This funding window had a focus on collaborative initiatives to address current gaps in social investment market infrastructure. A primary purpose was to promote sharing of tools, data and resources to lower transaction costs; increase diversity and innovation; and facilitate learning and feedback to move social investment forward.

In response, the Connect Fund received 62 applications, for a total request amount of £3.25m and an average grant size of £49,849. Of these, approximately 40 are best suited to the aims of this first round EOI, for a total request amount of £2.4m and an average grant size of £60,927. The remaining 22 proposals are better suited to the second round EOI, with a focus on voluntary sector infrastructure and membership organisations, and will be shifted to this second stage.

Looking strong, but keep an eye out

Comparing the field, the fund generated a strong range of proposals. There was a positive turnout across nine separate themes. These include business development, capacity building, data sharing, diversity, market information, networks, shared resources, skill development and standards/templates. A number of collaborative approaches were put forward, and the message on partnership was clearly received.

A good selection of ideas is in the running. The need for diversity was well recognised. A number of proposals showed promise to build staff teams, expand diversity of demand-side recipients, encourage new entrants to the sector, and widen the leadership pipeline for social investment.

Ideas for reducing transaction costs, sharing resources and enhancing market information were put forward. Proposals to increase regional representation and eliminate geographic cold spots also turned up. Of the 62 proposals we received, 42% were from organisations outside of London.

A few gaps in the line-up remain. One task for the Connect Fund is to identify areas that are missing or might need further development. Initiatives to develop a shared diagnostic tool, common due diligence, and technical skill development for the sector have been discussed but did not make an appearance.

Key to form is to build learning groups for initiatives that share a common theme. Data sharing is a perfect example of how a ‘community of practice’ could achieve added value to ensure that projects are mutually beneficial and non-duplicative. Capacity building initiatives also have the potential to be greater than the sum of the parts. The Connect Fund will seek to host or promote learning partnerships to accelerate solutions to shared challenges and extend collaboration across organisations working on related topics.

The current task is to sift through the 40 first-round grant applications on the basis of 10 different criteria to finalise the shortlist. Applicants will be notified by mid-August if they will progress to the next round. Shortlisted proposals will be asked to submit full grant applications for final investment management committee decisions in mid-November.

One to watch

Voluntary sector infrastructure and membership bodies should keep an eye out for the second round EOI which will run from 2 October to 5 November 2017. This funding round is designed to foster enterprise-driven initiatives that can connect places or sectors to social investment. A key objective is to extend the reach of social investment by geography, sector, and on an equalities basis to diversify and widen access to new forms of finance. This will take the form of grants for feasibility studies to explore social investment capacity building, brokering, and advice or scoping of social investment programmes.

The Connect Fund will continue to engage with the social investment market to shift the narrative to focus on the funding realities that mission-driven social organisations face. Social investment is one tool for charities and social enterprises to consider as they explore a pathway to generating income and building more financial resilience. Please get in touch if your organisation has good ideas that the Connect Fund could help to support.

 Jessica Brown, the Connect Fund Manager, wrote this blog originally for the Access Fund website.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

People living with HIV continue to face barriers to accessing insurance, despite improvements in availability over the past decade, according to a new report from NAT (National AIDS Trust).

From the 1980s up until the early 2000s, it was nearly impossible for someone living with HIV to access insurance products, and they often struggled to access products linked to insurance, such as mortgages. For many gay and bisexual men (regardless of their HIV status), invasive “lifestyle” questionnaires, mandatory HIV testing, heavily-loaded premiums and a refusal to accept the validity of long-term relationships, were a common experience when seeking life and protection insurance.

Happily, thanks to persistent campaigning by LGBT+ and HIV activists and the introduction of strict guidelines on what can be asked in application processes, many of these practices have now been eradicated and access has been improved.

People living with HIV can now access banking services, general insurance products such as motor, buildings, and home contents, and pensions and savings products without any need to mention their status.

Where health information is required, there have also been improvements to access. Recent reforms in travel insurance mean that someone with a CD4 count of 400 or above and an undetectable viral load who is otherwise healthy should be able to get cover at no extra cost.[1] Life insurance for people living with HIV has been available since 2009, and the quality of cover is rapidly improving.[2]

Evidently, access has improved considerably for people living with HIV and this should be celebrated. However, the research NAT took in the report HIV and Finance highlights that there is still room for improvement.

NAT found that one in four (25%) people living with HIV have been refused a financial product or quoted an unaffordable insurance premium in the last five years. Some insurance products, such as income protection insurance and critical illness cover, still remain completely unavailable to people living with HIV. Given the significant improvements in mortality and morbidity of people living with HIV since the introduction of effective treatment, NAT question whether this treatment is proportionate to the reality of living with HIV today.

People living with HIV often struggle to navigate a marketplace which caters for the mainstream – with only three in ten (28%) saying they knew where to look for HIV-inclusive financial products.

NAT also identified persistent remnants of the discriminatory past. Critical illness cover policies will only pay claims for HIV when acquired through an occupational injury or assault. By singling out HIV as the only condition where mode of transmission is relevant to the success of a claim, insurance providers are continuing to engage in stigmatising and discriminatory practice.

Bad practice past and present, as well as current levels of societal stigma, has led to three in five (60%) people living with HIV avoiding applying for financial products because of their HIV status. This self-exclusion is largely due to fears of refusal, higher costs and stigma.

Financial products protect against financial shocks and help promote financial resilience, which can support adherence to treatment and the long-term financial security of an ageing population of people living with HIV. It is therefore crucial that HIV organisations and financial service providers work together to more widely disseminate information to improve understanding of the availability of financial products to people living with HIV.

People living with HIV aren’t alone in facing these barriers to access. They are part of the 15 million people living with a long-term condition in the UK today, and we know that many in this group struggle with the same barriers to access as those living with HIV.

The report highlights that these issues require strategic action from a range of stakeholders, including the financial services industry, the financial services regulator (the Financial Conduct Authority), and the government. NAT have outlined a range of policy and practice recommendations that should be implemented, whilst recognising that further work is needed to resolve some of the more complex issues of access. NAT is determined to continue championing the financial inclusion of people living with HIV, ensuring our recommendations become a reality.

The report states improving access is a win-win situation for all involved. It presents a significant market opportunity for businesses who adapt their approach to better meet the needs of people with HIV and other long-term conditions. It ensures that regulators and governments are protecting consumers and citizens from harm. Finally, and most importantly from NAT’s perspective, it enables people living with HIV and other long-term conditions to better protect themselves financially.

The full details of our research and recommendations are outlined in the report HIV and Finance: Exploring access to financial services for people living with HIV in the UK.

If you are living with HIV and need further information on the availability of financial products, you can visit NAM Aidsmap’s resource on Personal Finance.

[1] Viral load tests measure the amount of HIV’s genetic material in a blood sample, whilst CD4 count tests indicate the strength of the immune system. A viral load below 50 is classed as undetectable – meaning the virus is at a very low level and cannot be passed on. CD4 count. People living with HIV who have a CD4 count over 500 are usually in good health. For further information see http://www.aidsmap.com/CD4-viral-load-amp-other-tests/page/1327442/

[2] For example, life insurance terms were usually capped at 10 years when policies were first introduced in 2009. Recent research by specialist broker Unusual Risks showed that the average length term insured is now 19 years, with the longest term at 25 years.

Blog post shared from NAT.org.uk

This morning the Connect Fund was launched by the Barrow Cadbury Trust in partnership with the Access Foundation to support shared tools and initiatives that build a better social investment market. The fund will support intermediaries and infrastructure organisations to make social investment work for a wider, more diverse range of charities and social enterprises.

Social investment can be complex. At its best, a well-functioning social investment market prioritises impact and catalyses social change. The goal is to start with the beneficiary and maximise social outcomes. In reality, risk, return, and deal structures often take priority – leading to what we call a “finance first” approach. The result is that not enough charities and social enterprises access simple, affordable, repayable finance.

I have heard mixed views on the social investment market. After years of hard work to build the sector, many are discouraged. There are still many challenges. The sustainability of many funds and advisors remains uncertain. Social investment intermediaries struggle to meet the finance needs of the bulk of the social sector. Yet others are bullish about the promise of impact investing, for-profit social businesses, and developing impact funds for mainstream financial markets.

Social innovation is happening in communities all over the UK. Creative solutions to health, homelessness or housing – to name a few – are inspiring. These initiatives need funding. In the ‘new normal’, uncertainty prevails and access to grants or public resources is scarce. Social investment can be a resource for enterprise-driven charities or social enterprises to achieve mission with new revenue streams.

The social investment market has reached a turning point. Investing in social ventures, property initiatives and secured loans has worked reasonably well. But providing charities and social enterprises with low cost, unsecured, blended finance, hasn’t really taken off. The pipeline for new investments is relatively thin. Small to medium sized charities, social enterprises and community businesses form the core of the UK social sector, where real impact is generated. Can we continue to ignore the finance gap?

Social investment has come a long way since 2009 when the Barrow Cadbury Trust made its first foray into the current market. How will the sector define its next phase of development? Should the market move upstream to attract mainstream investors? A “finance first” model that requires market-level returns drives many intermediaries to move in this direction. What happens if social investment becomes disconnected from the communities where impact is created?

Social investment is only a good thing if it keeps social mission at its heart. Values like diversity, equality, social justice, and mission are critical. If we lose sight of these values in the market, where will the “social” be in social investment? The market will simply reflect the existing financial sector.

At this stage, there are more questions than answers. The immature state of the market means there are many resource and infrastructure gaps. Social enterprises need capacity building. More diverse participants with strong connections to places or sectors may be required. No doubt the solution lies in a combination of factors.

Some of these challenges can be addressed by catalysing shared resources and market infrastructure; and by testing new ways for existing voluntary sector infrastructure to engage with social investment. The Connect Fund will strive to support positive solutions to build a better social investment market through a process of consultation and collaboration, underpinned by learning.

Jessica Brown, Connect Fund Manager

14 June 2017

Roger Grimshaw, Research Director at the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (CCJS) blogs about his research for T2A into how practitioners have been using T2A’s ‘Taking Account of Maturity’ guide

Taking Account of Maturity: A Guide for Probation Practitioners was published by T2A in 2013; by 2016 the Guide had been mentioned in NOMS guidance for pre-sentence reporting, marking a significant official acceptance. What happened in the interval?

In the publication Making Sense of Maturity, research with practitioners and managers shows ways in which the Guide was disseminated and embraced within probation services, and how they see it in the present context. We wanted to find out how the Guide was being used to develop frontline probation practice, to discover any ‘ripple’ effects (for example, on other agencies), to provide a template for monitoring use of the Guide and to scope out directions for future guidance.

Because fieldwork started in 2014, at the point when Transforming Rehabilitation brought abrupt structural changes, the research was delayed as probation grappled with its new priorities. Later, it proved possible to listen to practitioners who were operating with the Guide in the new context that prevails today. Amid the turbulence, the buy-in of senior management to promoting a maturity agenda was a factor in making the Guide a part of practice with young adults, though not all probation areas will have followed the same path. The Guide’s use was enhanced by practice briefings and support which could then chime with organisational delivery, especially by specialist teams.

Maturity looks different from the point of view of probation practice, because there are specific social pathways that have created challenges to the maturity of young adults under supervision.

‘So maturity is fundamental, it’s absolutely fundamental. About 30% of our young people have been in care. 50% of them didn’t finish school. Out of the 50% that did, only 5% got a formal qualification. So the rites of passage that you would normally associate with teenage growth and maturity, they just haven’t hit those milestones.’ (Probation manager)

Missing out on education, going through the care system, having difficulty communicating with agencies: these are just some of the experiences that need to be properly understood. Good communication and the development of trust are vital if young adults are to be engaged. Hence caseloads have to be adjusted to allow time for this sensitive work and other agencies must be fully engaged.

Crucially, the future health of maturity initiatives in probation depends on: an active strategic commitment to developing practice sensitive to the maturity of young adults; and an awareness of the pathways and milestones that a well-informed social policy binding together all agencies should address. If practitioners want to turn those conditions into reality, our research will give them plenty of ammunition and evidence.

 

 

David Cutler, Director of the Baring Foundation, writes about why the Baring Foundation has taken the lead in the creation of an Independent Inquiry into the Future of Civil Society starting work this month.  

Since 1969, the Baring Foundation has given grants to voluntary sector organisations seeking to tackle discrimination and disadvantage. One of our first grants was to Centrepoint which was founded in the same year. In 1995, with the collapse of Baring Bros bank, the Foundation became an independent entity with a sharper focus on the role of civil society through our Strengthening the Voluntary Sector Programme.

At the same time, Nicholas Deakin was chairing the Independent Inquiry into the Future of the Voluntary Sector. Its report, published a year later, did much to establish the rules of engagement between central government and the voluntary sector, especially through the Compact. The latter agreement acknowledged the contribution of the voluntary sector to civic life and also sought to protect that role, particularly by recognising the right of an independent sector to advocate on the behalf of those it serves.

We were fortunate enough to secure Nicholas Deakin as a trustee who went on to lead our Strengthening the Voluntary Sector programme. The Foundation focused its social justice grant-making from 2006 on the question of the independence of the voluntary sector. We knew that concerns about independence were not confined to the UK. (And these concerns have only grown more widespread and more acute, with Civicus estimating last year that over half the world’s governments were engaged in legislation or other action to restrict the freedom of civil society.) The impact of some of the grants we made is captured here.

Our concerns over the freedom of the voluntary sector are of course not party- political. The grants programme was launched under a Labour Government, we initiated the subsequent Panel on the Independence of the Voluntary Sector under the Coalition Government and the Independent Inquiry will work under a Conservative Government. The Panel on the Independence of the Voluntary Sector brought together widely respected leaders from civil society to analyse systematically the opportunities and pressures on civil society.

Like all good ideas, many people saw the need for a broad look at the future of civil society. NCVO had planned to mark its centenary in 2019 with such an Inquiry and have very generously given £100k in research resources to the Independent Inquiry. The Panel on the Independence of the Voluntary Sector in their third report in 2014 concluded that ‘a “new settlement” is required between the voluntary sector and key partners, particularly the state, but this needs to be underpinned by a shared understanding of the distinctive contribution of an independent voluntary sector. This thought was then elaborated in a subsequent collection of essays by Civil Exchange published the same year. Special mention in all this must go to Caroline Slocock who as Director of Civil Exchange has been a great champion for the independence of the voluntary sector and her most recent report sponsored by Lankelly Chase and ourselves is an important contribution to the Inquiry.

In taking the decision to commit £200k in core funding as an anchor pledge for the Inquiry, the Foundation is very much in the debt of Margaret Bolton who, acting as an independent consultant for us, spoke to a range of potential stakeholders regarding the prospect of an Independent Inquiry. Her careful analysis was critical in securing the essential support of seven other foundations as core funders:

  • Barrow Cadbury Trust
  • Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation UK
  • City Bridge Trust
  • Esmée Fairbairn Foundation
  • Lankelly Chase
  • Lloyds Bank Foundation for England and Wales
  • Paul Hamlyn Foundation.

This has been more than a group of funders signing cheques and lending their very significant weight to a project; rather they shaped the very nature of the enterprise, and continue to do so. However, the Inquiry is strictly independent from its funders as we believe deeply that it should be free to state whatever views it concludes, even if these are uncomfortable ones.

As a partnership this group then took the vital step of finding a Chair for the Inquiry. After interview, the funders unanimously and enthusiastically invited Julia Unwin to take up the position of Chair. This she has done with great energy and consummate skill since she stood down as the CEO of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. One of Julia’s first tasks was to form a Panel to support her – the result is a diverse group of people with a huge amount of experience in and outside the voluntary sector. Lastly, through an intensely competitive open process, a Secretariat for the Inquiry was appointed, led by Forum for the Future in partnership with Citizens UK, Goldsmiths, University of London and Open Democracy. Diversity has been a very important principle in designing the Inquiry, not only as regards equalities but also in perspective and experience.

As the House of Lords Select Committee on Charities in its recent report Stronger charities for a stronger society puts it: ‘charities are the eyes, ears and conscience of society. They mobilise, they provide, they inspire, they advocate and they unite’. Civil society is being challenged, it seems, ever more regularly about how it runs itself and these challenges need to be honestly and confidently addressed. In a time of political upheaval, civil society also needs to engage with deep societal and environmental changes regarding inequalities and discrimination, social cohesion, digital technology and automation in the workplace, ageing, devolution and climate change, to name but a few. The time is right for a broad look at how civil society serves all of society and how it can best be organised in the future.

So over the next two years, we look forward to a conversation between all corners of civil society and with society more broadly. The end of the Inquiry in 2019 will coincide with the Foundation’s 50th anniversary year and a strategy review. Its conclusions will be an important guide for us as we embark on our next 50 years.

The Independent Inquiry will be launched on 20 April.

It is still relatively rare for funders to collaborate both with other funders and organisations working on the frontline. Here, in an article originally published by Trust and Foundation News (the membership magazine of the Association of Charitable Foundations (ACF)) , Debbie Pippard of Barrow Cadbury Trust and Cathy Stancer of Lankelly Chase join with Andy Gregg of ROTA (Race On The Agenda) and Jeremy Crook from BTEG (Black Training and Enterprise Group) to outline the co-creation and progress of a new alliance fighting ethnic inequality.

Funder collaboration is an increasingly normal part of the way foundations work. Issues as diverse as migration, mental health stigma, early intervention, women and multiple disadvantage, and child sexual exploitation are being approached by funder collaboratives of varying shapes and sizes. It still appears to be a new idea, however, to explicitly set out with the aim of co-creating priorities and actions with those working in NGOs in the field – in other words a genuinely mixed alliance. This is the story of one such alliance, one between race equality organisations and funders.

It started with a call from the Big Lottery Fund, which led to a loose alliance of funders coming together over a shared concern about ethnic inequality and social justice in late 2015. This was a diverse group working on a wide range of issues – health and wellbeing, poverty, criminal justice, arts and heritage, education, extreme disadvantage. The common thread is a concern about the stark ethnic inequalities that are apparent in systems and communities. In the criminal justice system, just to give one example, Black and Minority Ethnic (BAME) communities are over-represented in prison: approximately 25% of prisoners are from a BAME background, compared with being only 13% of the wider population. The situation is worse for under-18s: over 40% of those in secure youth institutions are from BAME backgrounds, up significantly from 25% a decade ago. Despite decades of activism and legislation it is clear that we are not born equal: race and ethnicity still have a substantial impact on life chances and experiences.

Collective dialogue

Rather than funders deciding on a course of action, in early 2016 the funder alliance began a collective dialogue with key race equality organisations, co-creating a number of priority areas. This was and remains a complicated thing – power dynamics are at play, there are questions of who is and is not at the table. Can expectations raised by the coming together of so many funders be met? Are funders really prepared to be open about their processes and to change their practice?

We haven’t resolved these issues but we are still in dialogue, being as open as we can be with each other, building relationships and reminding ourselves of our shared purpose when things get difficult. Our work has started to crystallise around two issues, and jointly we are exploring the development of a strategic communications project, and a co-ordinated response to the government’s Race Disparity Unit (which will synthesise data on racial inequalities in public services).

Hate given licence

The work of our fledgling collaborative was given an added urgency by the Referendum last June and the spike in hate crime that followed it. It is unlikely this represented a sudden upsurge in racist sentiment. Instead it seems that the rhetoric surrounding the referendum, and the post-referendum environment, has made people with racist or xenophobic views feel more comfortable expressing these openly. The election of Donald Trump and the rise of the far right across Europe adds to the sense of a continuing trend and to the importance of renewed engagement with this issue and solidarity with those directly affected.

In our collaborative, the race equality organisations reported on a growing unease and sense of threat felt by BAME organisations and communities. Funders were keen to identify some ‘quick wins’. Together we came up with ideas, which we offer as potentially helpful to others in the funder community who want to show solidarity with those affected:

  • Talk about inequalities, race and racism. Mention it on your website. Name it as an issue. Keep it on the agenda.
  • Talk to race equality organisations to find out what has happened post-referendum. Reporting mechanisms for hate crime are fragmented so it is not always easy to get a complete picture – supporting existing or new reporting mechanisms, or funding race equality bodies, is helpful.
  • Use your convening power to bring people together to discuss the issues highlighted by the referendum and subsequent events and to consider how to respond together.
  • Support work that brings people from different communities together in meaningful shared activity or in dialogue. Under the right conditions interpersonal contact is one of the most effective ways to reduce prejudice between majority and minority group members.
  • Review your own policies and procedures for unintentional bias against BAME organisations. Increasing your permeability might help with this – consider offering a secondment to someone from a local BAME organisation or inviting a review of your procedures.
  • Few trusts and foundations are leading by example: our senior management teams and boards lack diversity. Are there steps that you can take to improve this, or to bring diverse voices into your organisation?

Reviewing our practice

As well as working collaboratively with the race equality sector, the funder group continues with its own separate cycle of meetings, at which we discuss and reflect on our own processes and learn from each other. Members have responded in a range of ways. For example, some have undertaken equalities audits or reviewed our grant-making practices. Several of us have made ourselves more open to BAME organisations through secondments. We are learning to be comfortable saying we haven’t got it right and we want to improve.

All trusts and foundations that want to increase their contribution to race equality are very welcome to join the funder alliance, the funder/race equality sector collaborative or both. We don’t have all the answers but we think working in the spirit of genuine partnership, with all the joys and challenges it brings, is the right thing to do.

For more information contact Cathy Stancer or Debbie Pippard

 

Image 20170324 12149 1m8kj1x

noppawan09/Shutterstock

The following article was originally published on The Conversation website by Lindsey Appleyard, Coventry University and Shaun French, University of Nottingham.

British governments have been trying to improve financial inclusion for the best part of 20 years. The goal is to make it easier for people on lower incomes to get banking services, but this simple-sounding target brings with it a host of problems. The Conversation

A House of Lords committee has just published the latest report on this issue, but the genesis of financial inclusion policy can be traced back to the late 1990s as part of the Labour government’s social exclusion agenda. The scope and reach of this strategy has since expanded beyond a focus on access to products and now seeks to improve people’s financial literacy to help them make their own responsible decisions around financial services.

The goal of increasing the availability of basic banking has become a tool for tackling poverty and deprivation worldwide, among governments in the global north and global south and among key institutions. In 2014, the World Bank produced what it described as the world’s most comprehensive financial exclusion database based on interviews with 150,000 people in more than 140 countries.

mobiledisco/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

Muddy waters

However, broad and enthusiastic acceptance of such policy efforts has prompted doubts about the simplistic narrative of inclusion and exclusion. This way of thinking does not capture the complexities of the links between the use of financial services and poverty, life chances and socio-economic mobility. It also ignores the sliding scale of financial inclusion, from the marginally included – who rely on basic bank accounts – through to the super-included with access to a full array of affordable financial services.

You can see the complexity and contradictions clearly in innovations such as subprime products and high-cost payday lenders. They have made it increasingly difficult to draw a clear distinction between the included and the excluded. Mis-selling scandals and concerns over high charges have also shown us that financial inclusion is no guarantee of protection from exploitative practices.

Even the pursuit of better financial education offers a mixed picture. Critics have raised concerns that this shifts the focus away from structural discrimination and towards the individual failings of “irresponsible and irrational” consumers. There is a grave risk that we will fail to tackle the root causes of financial exclusion, around insecure income and work, if policy follows this route.

In the midst of this focus on customers, the government’s role has been reduced to supporting those education programmes and cajoling mainstream banks, building societies and insurers into being more inclusive.

The Square Mile in London.
Michael Garnett/Flickr, CC BY-NC

Given the central role that financial services play in shaping everyday lives, a hands-off approach from the state is inadequate. It fails to address the injustices produced by a grossly inequitable financial system. Our recent research examined how the idea of financial citizenship might offer a route to improvements. In particular, we looked at the idea of basic financial citizenship rights and the role that might be played by UK credit unions, the organisations which, supported by government, seek to bring financial services to those on low incomes.

The idea of establishing rights was put forward by geographers Andrew Leyshon and Nigel Thrift in response to the growing lack of access to mainstream financial services. The goal would be to recognise the significance of the financial system to everyday life and set in stone the right and ability of people to participate fully in the economy.

That sounds like a laudable aspiration, but what could a politics of financial citizenship entail in practice?

Drawing on the work of political economist Craig Berry and researcher Chris Arthur, we argue that the policy debate should move on to establish a set of universal financial rights, to which the citizens of a highly financialised society such as the UK are entitled regardless of their personal or economic situation.

  1. The right to participate fully in political decision-making regarding the role and regulation of the financial system. This would entail, for example, the democratisation of money supply and of the work of regulators. Ordinary people would have to be able to meaningfully engage in debates about the social usefulness of the financial system.
  2. The right to a critical financial citizenship education. Financial education needs to go beyond the simple provision of knowledge and skills to understand how the financial system is currently configured. It should provide citizens with the tools to be able to think critically about money and debt, as well as the capability to effect meaningful change of the financial system.
  3. The right to essential financial services that are appropriate and affordable such as a transactional bank account, savings and insurance.
  4. The right to a comprehensive state safety net of financial welfare provision. This could include a real living wage to prevent a reliance on debt to meet basic needs and could go all the way through to the provision of guarantees on the returns that can be expected from private pension schemes.

Establishing this set of rights would be a major step towards enhancing the financial security and life chances of households and communities. The weight of responsibility would shift from individuals and back on to financial institutions, regulators, government and employers to provide basic financial needs. As one example, just as people in the UK are given a national insurance number when they turn 16, so the government and the banks could automatically provide a basic bank account to everyone at the age of 18.

The UK credit union movement does make efforts towards these goals, but it cannot fully mobilise financial citizenship rights largely due to its limited scale and regulatory and operational limitations. For the rights to work, they will need the support of the state, of financial institutions, regulators and employers. That would enable the country to build something less flimsy than the loose structure we have right now, which piles blame onto the consumer and relies on voluntary industry measures to pick up the slack.

Lindsey Appleyard, Research Fellow, Coventry University and Shaun French, Associate Professor in Economic Geography, University of Nottingham

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.