Welfare reform, the ‘bedroom tax’, tougher sanctions for those receiving Jobseeker’s Allowance, reductions in council tax benefits, reductions in benefits; all happening at once with reduced funding to administer and/or advise those affected – for many the nightmare has just begun; and we haven’t even hit universal credit yet.

What seems to have been overlooked is that many people on benefits already live hand-to-mouth and change at this level is enough to upset the balance and literally send families and individuals lives into chaos; so a whole raft of changes introduced at once with more to come has been nothing short of catastrophic for many.

I’m not saying things shouldn’t change but change on this scale needs to be properly thought through and resourced; implemented at a realistic pace and most importantly, it must be fair.

The number of new food banks opening up and the caps being placed on the number of food parcels people can have shows the reality of the situation – I was on the High Street at the weekend and without moving could see four shops advertising loans or offering cash for goods – to me it’s the payday loan companies benefitting most from these changes and not the taxpayer.

Some statistics from Birmingham Settlement to demonstrate the point: last year for our biggest single advice contract we had 1200 contacts; in April and May alone this year we’ve seen 660 – that’s more than 50% of last years’ total in just two months. At the same time our funding has reduced and we have had to cut our delivery team from 12 to 8.

There has also been a significant increase in the number of people being referred from other agencies who are also struggling to cope – in the last six weeks two advice agencies near us have closed due to lack of funding.

Money advisers at Birmingham Settlement. Their time and resources are increasingly stretched.

We are advising people that they may have to wait up to three hours, sometimes more, and the fact that most people are prepared to wait says it all; some days we have to simply close the doors because we cannot see any more people.

There is also a real danger to staff struggling to maintain the service. I was in the corridor outside our offices with an adviser last week and he was stopped by an existing client seeking advice, once outside the building he was stopped again by another client – the pressure being placed on small responsive agencies (and their staff) like the Settlement is immense, and is not sustainable.

It’s interesting that Birmingham City Council recently said they had seen a 91% increase in rent arrears since the inception of welfare reform; and a couple of Housing Associations in the North East reported a 300% increase in arrears – and they have empty properties because people aren’t prepared to move into family accommodation – clearly there is a problem.

At Birmingham Settlement we see hundreds of people and it seems to me we’re penalising those who are least able to deal with the situation – it’s out of their hands.

I propose that a much fairer solution would be to send the bill to the housing provider or local authority. If this was the case, pressure would be taken off the people who literally cannot pay; whilst you could be assured the provider would work quicker to find an alternative solution or accommodation – and perhaps even plan for future needs? Obviously, there could be problems as the tenant could, in theory, be offered something totally unsuitable (think of an elderly or disabled lady with mobility needs on the top floor of a tower block), so there would need to be some safeguards. However, at least the problem would be addressed by those who have a voice or ability to influence – and it’s good to see some providers are beginning to stand up and use their position. The reality is that unfortunately our clients don’t have a voice. Who is fighting for them?

Government has said there is flexibility in the system, but the reality doesn’t seem to reflect this – and welfare changes are being applied across the board with little apparent discretion. Even if there was discretion – what allowances would be made and how would they be implemented? That’s another reason why we need to shift responsibility to the provider.

We often talk about inequality and the need to close the gap between the haves and have nots. Indeed, an independent inquiry by MPs recently concluded that the poorest and most deprived parts of the country are the worst affected by public spending cuts. Here in Birmingham we can certainly agree on that.

Securing a place at school

RMC helped Rose to complete the application for admitting her child to the local school. It is very difficult for clients with little English to discriminate between very important and less important letters from their child’s school. Rose always brought any letters from school to RMC so that she was sure she fully understood them. When she moved to another area we assisted her in appealing the decision not to allow the child to move schools. Later Rose was obliged to return to her home country for several months and we contacted Wolverhampton Council to inform them that the child would be travelling abroad for a protracted period of time.

An adviser and client at the RMC (not those featured in these case studies

Housing debt while coping with cancer

Our client was in debt with rent arrears with their housing provider, who had contracted out collection of the debt to a private company. The debt collectors demanded that he pay each month over the phone. Because the client couldn’t speak English he had to travel to RMC each time so that an adviser could assist him.

He found the journey difficult as he was suffering from cancer, and he was being harassed by the debt collectors knocking on his door continuously. An RMC adviser contacted housing provider and explained the situation. The housing provider retrieved the debt collection from the private company and allowed the client to make payments by direct debit, which was a huge relief to the client.

In 1986 I was born 13 weeks premature by emergency caesarean. Normally parents get to hold their babies as they enter the outside world, but for my parents they could only stare at me in a box. Normally they can hear their child cry and breathe; my parents could hear only silence punctuated by the regular bleep of a heart monitor. Thanks to significant advances it is almost routine for children born as early as myself to survive. In fact, seven out of 10 do, but the odds were not as much in my favour back then.

Despite a bleak outlook numerous doctors and nurses worked hard, resulting in my condition stabilising within a few weeks. However, it was a while before I was out of the woods. I had developed a hernia and once again was in need of urgent treatment. The doctors at Pilgrim had to move me on to the care of Leela Kapila, a renowned specialist, who saved my life.

My family never forgot the actions of the staff at the Pilgrim, and particularly Kapila. And so, every year on my birthday, my parents and I became pilgrims ourselves, visiting the team at the hospital and presenting them with a birthday cake to say thank you.

I cannot begin to calculate the cost of all the doctors, nurses and medical equipment required to treat me in those early weeks, but I’m fairly sure I am still in arrears. So many of us owe our lives to the NHS and I certainly do, yet too often we can take it for granted. Indeed I often did myself as I complained about spending my birthday in a maternity ward rather than a theme park.

Douglas Jefferson outside the Pilgrim hospital in Boston, Lincolnshire, on his 18th birthday

Regular newspaper headlines will highlight poor performing hospitals, while statistics will tell us about increased rates of infections or waiting times. However, my experience of the NHS is very much a positive, happy story, which is also the case for plenty of others.

As the NHS turns 65, I am once again reminded that it is an institution I am incredibly proud of, as well as thankful for. As a result it’s a good time to reflect on our own stories with the NHS and to thank all the people who keep it running every day, helping people of all ages and welcoming new generations into the NHS. While I no longer bake birthday cakes, I am still just as thankful to the NHS and all the people who contribute to it.

Read British Future’s special briefing marking the NHS’s 65th birthday.

Help with getting citizenship

It is gratifying for Refugee and Migrant Centre staff when their clients finally achieve British citizenship, often at the end of a long, in distance and time, and tortuous journey.

Amira who was from Iraq was applying for citizenship for herself and her children. They all gained citizenship except for one son who was refused because had not passed the ‘Life in the UK’ test.

He was advised by the Government to take the test as soon as possible. However the test costs nearly £900 which the family did not have. RMC were able to support Amira and her son in appealing the decision and after a long wait his citizenship was granted.

Mental health related work

Nora was from Kuwait and seeking asylum in the UK. She had recognised mental health issues and needed support with many aspects of her life.

An advisor at the RMC

RMC made GP, hospital and physiotherapy appointments for her and organised interpreting services at these appointments. We located a dentist and booked her an appointment with ‘Healthy Minds’, a psychological therapies service for people who are experiencing common mental health problems such as depression, anxiety and stress.

We liaised with her housing provider re the condition of her accommodation and assisted her in applying for courses at a local college. When she failed to hear the outcome of her asylum interview we contacted her solicitor and the local MP who pursued her case. RMC advisers translated and explained every response so that Nora could better cope with her stressful situation.

Nora is still visiting RMC regularly and still hasn’t heard the outcome of her asylum claim.

Last week’s spending review brought little positive news for key departments and affected individuals; the prison budget was were reduced by £180m, a 6% cut to the transport resource budget has been proposed and civilian posts on the armed forces have been cut. Some specific components of the review have great implications for charities and those rely on in their services, notably cuts to the welfare budget, local government spending and the Charity Commission’s budget, meaning that times will only get tougher for the sector.

The review sees a 10% cut to local government spending making it particularly hard hit. This comes in addition to the previous 33% real terms cuts to council budgets directly affecting their service provisions. However, Local Enterprise Partnership (LEPs) can bid for funding from a local growth fund of £2bn (lower than the £70bn recommended by Lord Heseltine in his review of economic policies), a move declared to be: “a welcome step in the right direction” by Alex Pratt, chairman of the Buckinghamshire Thames Valley LEP.

Changes to the welfare budget will likely have the greatest immediate impact on many beneficiaries of charities working with vulnerable communities. A new cap will be introduced to the welfare system affecting housing benefit, tax credits and disability benefits. Alongside the welfare cap comes a cut to the benefits of claimants who do not speak English unless they take language courses and a ‘temperature test’ for winter fuel allowance preventing pensioners living in warm countries from claiming it.

Dubbed the ‘Wonga Week’ by some, the waiting period before jobseekers are able to claim benefits will be extended to seven days from the previous three, which has been perceived as a change that could encourage greater take-up of payday loans. Payday loans have received heightened attention due to an increased reliance on their services, alongside and increase in the sheer amount of debt stemming from payday loan. On average, the average amount owed on payday loans has increased by £400 to £1657.

Particularly in light of a greater reliance on food banks and increased payday loan debt, the consequences of the welfare cap are potentially significant for both charities and their beneficiaries; as a result, analysis of this will soon be published by NCVO.

The Charity Commissions’ budget will be reduced from £21.4million to £20.4million and the department for Culture, Media and Sport will be cut by 7%.

The resource budgets for the Treasury and the Cabinet Office will be cut by 10%, whilst the Office for Civil Society will retain its funding of £56m and additional support will be provided for the National Citizenship Service.

Issues arising from cuts affecting the sector are twofold, as cuts to welfare and local government spending may lead to a further increased demand for their advice and support services, whilst the Charity Commission faces a direct cut to its funding, potentially reducing it’s ability to support and champion the sector. In the coming weeks NCVO will be working to build a fuller picture of the impact of these changes on voluntary and community organisations.

Voluntary sector irrelevance or key to a successful and inclusive economy?

When we saw the “new ideas in economics” strand of the Barrow Cadbury Trust’s Poverty and Inclusion programme [now the Resources and Resilience programme], we were surprised, and pleased. It’s long been an ironic state of affairs that charitable trusts have shown limited interest in exploring the systems by which we organise our livelihoods that cause the social problems the trusts exist to solve.

To us, it was an opportunity to research the assumption at the heart of Localise West Midlands’ mission: that in a more localised economy, more people have a stake, which redistributes economic power and resilience, reducing disconnection and inequality. Not, perhaps, a ‘new’ idea, when you consider 1960s Schumacher – but newly in need of exploration in the face of growing inequality and economic failure.

The chasm between charity and economic development thinking is mutual. There are plentiful ideas around what we have been calling community economic development: social inclusion as CSR, community-led job creation, co-ops and social enterprises, local procurement initiatives. To many economic development practitioners these are very nice projects that go into a little box labelled “voluntary sector” and have little to do with the real economy, which is about big sites, tax breaks for multinational corporations – “prostituting ourselves for inward investment” as the Centre for Local Economic Strategies‘ Neil McInroy colourfully puts it.

Our project, Mainstreaming Community Economic Development, is an attempt to take localised economies out of this little box. Firstly, to see the social potential not only of voluntary sector initiatives with social objectives, but also of private sector activity that is locally controlled and based, where the community’s participation is as owners, investors, purchasers and networkers.

And secondly to challenge what is given economic priority. Given the benefits of localised approaches, shouldn’t we try to integrate them better into our economic interventions? Shouldn’t they get a fair crack at subsidies and support structures? Shouldn’t we use cost benefit analysis to see which types of activity most maximise the returns to the local area and to those in disadvantage? It doesn’t fit into a little box, it’s just a consideration in all good decisions.

Localised economies are more successful and inclusive

In its first stage, a review of the literature evidence for the benefits of localised economies, we found good evidence that local economies with higher levels of SMEs and local ownership perform better in terms of employment growth (especially disadvantaged and peripheral areas), social inclusion, income redistribution, health, civic engagement and wellbeing.
Such economies also support local distinctiveness and diversity, which we see as positives because of their contribution to economic resilience, economic options to suit a diversity of people, sense of place and belonging, area quality, added interest and richness of experience.

Absentee landlords vs local commitment

We found that a local economy largely controlled by ‘absentee landlords’ – distant private and public sector controllers with little understanding of the local area – is a recipe for economic failure. Locally-inappropriate decisions and ‘footloose’ businesses leaving the area for better economic conditions seem to combine to weaken local businesses and create a self-reinforcing cycle of decline and exclusion.

Many of our private sector case studies showed local commitment. From Birmingham Wholesale Markets to renewable energy consultancies, they demonstrated ‘enlightened self-interest’ in understanding their interdependency with local communities. Their role in an inclusive economy can’t be underestimated. If only their voices were louder than those of absentee landlords in today’s ‘pro business’, London-centric political environment.

Mainstreaming and scaling up localisation

Informed by this and our case studies we set out proposals for a strategic approach centred on local supply and demand chains, participation and control. Taken strategically, every regeneration project, every economic development decision, every spatial plan, would be based on maximising benefit to and ownership by local people, and particularly its excluded communities.

While much can be done locally, to enable CED to scale up requires national change to decentralise economic and governmental power and make changes around policy, support services, subsidies, tax, banking, infrastructure and measures of success, creating a level playing field for indigenous economic activity.

Politically, it’s helpful that localisation approaches are inherently pro-business, but also respond to public concerns over the concentrations of wealth and power that created the 2008 Crash. As we take it forward, civil society interest, international examples like Mondragon and careful use of language may help this agenda to stay out of that little box long enough to contribute towards a better economy.

It was particularly thrilling that staff of the Fermanagh Trust made the journey across the Irish Sea to Birmingham for our launch event at the Council House. Director Lauri McCusker and founding trustee Jim Ledwith were present – and a you can read a great account of the reunion on the Fermanagh Trust’s website.

In 1995 the Barrow Cadbury Trust, which had for decades supported projects in Northern Ireland, endowed the Enniskillen-based Fermanagh Trust to independently support community work across rural Fermanagh.

Jim Ledwith, convenor of the Fermanagh Trust board of trustees, said: “the Fermanagh Trust has grown from strength to strength, both financially and in making Fermanagh a much better place. We as trustees and staff in the Fermanagh Trust has set the benchmark for other counties to follow but unfortunately very few have had either the will or foresight to build an independent trust fund for community effort in the county”.

He continued, “In this day and age when there has grown a whole industry and army of salaried people involved in ensuring compliance in funding together with ever increasing complicated processes in making applications for voluntary groups i am sure local people are appreciative of the fact that the Fermanagh trust ethos and working relationships on the ground is truly exceptional in that we value people first before process”.

You can find out more about the work of the Fermanagh Trust today on their website.

Untangling the web

At stressful times clients need practical and emotional support from the RMC. They may visit weekly or even daily to access that support.

Benita is a refugee from Cameroon. Her children were taken into the care of the local authority following an allegation made by one of her children. RMC made an appointment with a solicitor to represent Benita and accompanied her to her first appointment to help with interpreting.

Benita’s restricted understanding of English meant that she needed RMC to help her to comprehend any communications from social services, the police and her solicitor. Sometimes her access visits to her children were cancelled at short notice and RMC helped her make arrangements to see her children more regularly.

RMC supported her in getting progress reports from her children’s school and in explaining the contents of letters from her solicitor. Benita needed to visit RMC sixteen times in eight weeks. RMC is continuing to support her with the on-going case.

Supporting single mothers

Single mothers are particularly disadvantaged because they have to negotiate their way through many government departments and formal institutions to access their own and their children’s rights whilst caring for those children, and unsupported by a partner.

Dani had had both her Income Support and her Tax Credits application disallowed because of misunderstandings and insufficient evidence on her original application forms. RMC contacted the Job Centre and HMRC to clarify the situation and then supported her in reapplying. Through RMC she accessed Maternity Allowance and food vouchers through the Healthy Start programme.

Dani was registered as self-employed and needed support with completing her tax returns correctly. When problems arose with her child’s attendance at school RMC were able to facilitate meetings so that the issues could be resolved.

If you want to know what’s going on in prison you have to read the walls. Most communication comes through some form of poster or official notice and every available space has a notice board; which is great if you can read, but not so good if, like a huge percentage of prisoners, you didn’t spend much time in school.

When I got to prison I used to read every notice religiously; everything from ‘official searching procedures’ to ‘gender dysmorphia treatment policy’. Mostly it filled some time, but there was also the paranoid fear that I might miss something important – like an act of parliament knocking a couple of years off my sentence. (Don’t scoff – it happens).

Most notices are dull photocopied affairs, so it makes a change when something colourful goes up. Soon after moving to my first long-term prison, I noticed a glossy poster on the education board. It was from the ‘Koestler Trust’. They were holding a national prison arts competition. I discussed it with the Art teacher. She told me this happened every year and was becoming increasingly popular – not least because of the cash prizes available for the best work.

I decided to enter. It wasn’t like I had a lot else to do. Quite a few of the other lads said they would too. One or two had even won awards previously and recommended it. Over the next few months, I made a selection from my best class work, and did a couple of pieces specially. These were then collated by the education department and sent off to the Koestler Trust.

That first year I entered four paintings and a couple of pieces of writing. After an anxious wait for the results, I won three or four third place and runner-up awards. Surprisingly I also sold two pieces. Just before Christmas I received my prize money, and bought a few extra luxuries: CDs, a couple of T shirts, a nice jar of coffee. But now I was hooked.

I entered the Awards every year from then on, and as the years passed I became increasingly aware of the key role the work of the Koestler Trust plays in the life of the prison population.

Firstly, it provides a goal. Something to get out of bed for. Motivation is a real problem in prison – especially for long-termers. When every day is exactly the same it is all too easy to think: ‘what’s the point?’ But the Koestler competition gives a shape to the year: creating and collating entries, sending them off, waiting for news, finding out the results, receiving feedback from the judges and celebrating any winnings.

But perhaps more importantly it gives prisoners a sense of self-respect.

The prospect of winning a little extra money might inspire the initial brush on canvas or pen to paper; but once the piece is finished the sense of achievement it brings should not be underestimated. Many times I have seen prisoners, who may never have achieved anything in their whole life, being genuinely moved at seeing a collection of their own creations. Sometimes it means such a lot that they can’t bear to send their work off to be judged – which might be a shame, but nevertheless it was Koestler that motivated them to do the work in the first place.

Before prison I wasn’t a typical offender. I didn’t have a drink or drug problem, I was well educated and I had a ‘proper’ job. But I nevertheless struggled with depression and low self-esteem, and I had a constant battle with crushing feelings of inadequacy. I was not used to getting any recognition for anything I did and I had no outlet for my creative abilities. Koestler changed all that. I won quite a few awards in prison, and the sense of achievement that brought was considerable. I discovered I might have the ability to write professionally, and now have a Koestler-appointed mentor to help me investigate that.

When you compare the impact of the Koestler Trust to its funding you cannot but conclude that it is stunning value for money. Indeed I would suggest that the Koestler Trust together with the Shannon Trust (who run the excellent Toe by Toe reading programme) between them contribute more to prisoner rehabilitation than any other prison initiative. Of course most prisons have education departments – but for many of them prisoner motivation is a major challenge. Many prisoners have such negative experiences of school that the idea of attending prison education is unthinkable – yet some of these same men will happily write a story or draw a picture to enter it for the Koestler Awards. I cannot overstate what an important thing that is.

Overall, prison can be a bleak place with few success stories. Thankfully the Koestler Trust is an exception. This is my ninth year entering the Koestler competition, and thankfully I have now been released. But the legacy of those annual competitions will stay with me forever.

Peter is a Koestler Awards entrant, prize winner and Scholar

You can find out more about the work of the Koestler Trust here.

Populism is a new force in European politics. Tearing up the ideological contours of the 20th Century, its exponents vary from the grievance politics of the radical right and the far left through to dangerous forms of extremism and nationalism, values-and issue-based campaigning and the virulent currents of anti-politics and distrust of elite political projects which are sweeping across Europe.

As the Policy Network and Barrow Cadbury Trust project into the relationship between populism, extremism and mainstream politics shows, underlying the growth of all these populist movements is a series of deep-seated stresses that come to bear on liberal democracy and its mainstream party systems. They are socio-economic, cultural and political in nature.

The conclusions of this extensive cross-European study into how the mainstream parties have responded, and where they have failed to date, underlined the importance of 3 related strategic responses:

Firstly, acknowledge the rise of populism as both a threat and a corrective to democracy. The rise of anti-immigrant and anti-EU populism, for example, should be taken as a signal that mainstream parties have not correctly acknowledged past mistakes or the levels of concern which surround these issues. Progressive political parties cannot simply evade or dismiss the perceived, imagined or real grievances related to identity, cultural dislocation and immigration. Acknowledgement is a precondition to countering myths, getting back in touch with voters and responding to the root causes of discontent. Reframing, ignoring the problem, or simply labelling “reluctant radicals” as ugly racists, fans the flames of populism.

Secondly, work extensively on a governing agenda driven by the acknowledgement of past failings. In essence, getting on with the difficult policy work of formulating strategies in relation to education; housing; social mobility; labour markets; skills and training; sectoral intervention; regulation, i.e. predistribution; community building; policing; public interest regulatory bodies; dispersal of power i.e mutual and co-operative councils; and tackling the EU legitimacy crisis.

Thirdly, ‘contact democracy’ as a strategic response to political distrust. This means championing initiatives, tools and organisations that engage citizens in political dialogue and participation.

The emphasis on acknowledging the problem and ‘improving government’ is nothing particularly new. Moreover, progressive governance has become even more difficult and complex in these times of crisis, with national governments holding less power due to the forces of globalisation and the constraints of the debt crisis on public finances. At the same-time, the digital revolution and technological innovation have left many mainstream political parties hollowed-out and lagging in the past. As The Financial Times commentator Philip Stephens points out, “the political mega-trend of recent decades has been the diffusion of power – from states to other actors and from old elites to citizens.”

The focus on contact democracy and new forms of voter engagement is therefore a crucial supplementary step to building new coalitions which can carry a popular and credible governing progamme. Politics needs to regain legitimacy and this means people feeling more ownership and engagement.

Amidst the cult reportage of the maverick figure-head Beppe Grillo, the often-missed point about the rise of the Five Star Movement in Italy has been their successful use of the internet to encourage grassroots co-ordination among activists at the local level. As Anthony Painter, the author of the final project report, puts it, they have “mastered a viral form of contact democracy”. Italian-based political scientist Duncan McDonnell has documented the use of new tools such as meetup.com, which have been very successfully used by the movement to mobilise and empower supporters. The Five Star Movement has many faults, but their internet and activist engagement success cannot be ridiculed.

To be sure, micro-democratic solutions and deliberative democracy forums do not offer the answers to the complex governing questions around growth and economic rebalancing. But the point is that political elites will soon lose their mandates to take on these difficult challenges with-out opening-up old clientele power structures and dispersing power more widely, embracing the digital revolution and new forms of campaigning and contact democracy. Progressive politics has to focus on the party of the future, not the party of the past.

Michael McTernan is deputy director of Policy Network @mmcternan