1. More ‘Big Squeeze’? Alison Blackwood, Head of Policy & Knowledge, LVSC 020 7832 5806 alison@lvsc.org.uk

2. What London’s voluntary and community sector is facing: The Big Squeeze report 2010-11 81% said the demand for their services had increased in 2010-2011; 51% had closed services in 2010-11; 54% expected more services to close in 2011-12; 86% expected demand for their services to increase in 2011-12; 77% were not confident they would be able to meet increases in demand in 2011-12; and 54% have made staff redundancies

3. The Big Squeeze report 2010-11 a year on year increase in demand for VCS services since 2008 - 9; cuts are hitting the VCS harder than the private and public sectors; greater pressure to deliver optimal results with fewer resources; preventative services are being disproportionately cut especially in advice, children & young people and health services;

4. The Big Squeeze report 2 demand for volunteering has increased but organisations’ capacity to support volunteers has decreased; more day and neighbourhood centres have closed; equalities groups and the poorest Londoners have been disproportionately affected; action taken by respondents shows growing numbers are adapting to change, showing resilience and flexibility.

5. What London’s VCS services are facing: LVSC research January 2012 at the local level 19 London boroughs had reliable figures for the % change of local authority funding for the local VCS. Mean local authority cut from central Government = 4.8% Mean cut to local authority funding of the VCS = 9.9% 21 boroughs had reliable figures for the % change in local authority funding to the local Council for Voluntary Service (CVS). Mean local authority cut from central Government = 4.8% Mean local authority cut to CVS funding = 14.9% On average London local authority cuts to their VCS have been disproportionately high Local CVSs were likely to average even higher cuts proportionately than those experienced by frontline VCS organisations in the capital.

6. Cuts to local authority funding by central government versus deprivation in London

7. Cuts to local authority VCS funding versus deprivation in London Deprivation score Cuts to VCS by LA (%)

8. What has happened to funding for VCS services in London? Regionally Combined cuts to London boroughs and GLA from central government = £355million London Councils 70% cut from 2009 – 13, around £18million London Councils cut all ESF TA funding (LVSTC in administration) and cut 50% of ESF funding Metropolitan Police Authority cut all funding for London-wide network of borough police community consultative groups (£96,000pa) London Development Agency abolished

9. Analysis of London Councils funding cuts: LVSC research January 2012 Service area% of organisations cut by number Service area% of London Councils funds cut Arts & Culture30Infrastructure25 Advice/Legal/Advocacy17Arts& Culture24 Infrastructure16Advice/Legal/Advocacy19 Health & Social Care13Health & Social Care13 Homelessness10Volunteering12 Volunteering9Homelessness8 Crime prevention9 7 Domestic/ sexual violence6 7 Counselling5Environment5 3Counselling4 Employment & Skills2 4 Transport1 1

10. Inequality and levels of poverty continue to increase in London. The Government’s benefit reforms have a disproportionately negative impact in London compared with the rest of the UK. A range of research finds average cuts to funding of VCS organisations between a low of 9.9% (from London borough cuts data collected by LVSC) to 26% (from NCVO Voluntary Sector Cuts website) in the last year, with a total loss of public sector funding for the VCS across London of between £19m and £41m in 2011-12 alone. Employment in the VCS has also decreased by almost 9% (from Labour Force survey data) between December 2010 – 11 with 60% of those losing their jobs being based in London (despite London accounting for only approximately 21% of the VCS workforce). LVSC cuts research January 2012

11. VCS organisations in the capital are more dependent upon public sector funding than rest of UK. The cuts that individual local boroughs made to the VCS also suggest that services to other equalities groups such as women, LGBT communities, religious / common belief communities and refugees/asylum seekers are also being disproportionately cut. Trust funding is being less drastically cut than public sector spending, corporate giving or individual donations. However, there is a higher than average proportion of London VCS organisations dependent upon public sector funding ACEVO analysis of Transition Fund applications shows that the average total income lost by VCS organisations from London applying for the fund was around £370,000 (the highest of any region) or 43.6% of their average total income. The cumulative total income loss for charities applying for the Fund from London was £146million (covering 405 organisations). LVSC cuts research January 2012

12. So where will funding for the VCS come from in the future? Public sector – down Corporate – down Trusts – maintaining but reserves declining Individual giving - down

13. Transforming Local Infrastructure Fund in London £30million fund nationally for 18 months 12 boroughs (around £400,000 each) Ealing CVS - covering 5 West London boroughs (£950,000) LVSC covering all London (£400,000) around £6million across London (£4million pa) 14 boroughs received no funding NO MORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT FUNDS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE AFTER SEPTEMBER 2013

14. London United Way model CVS/LVSC Network Business Networks Community Foundations Corporate Business Local Authoritie s SME’s Where priorities overlap

15. ‘Big Issues’: Possible network priorities Child poverty Youth unemployment Homelessness Financial literacy Early childhood development (school readiness) School graduation (improve dropout rates)

16. Fundraising –Local SMEs & London-wide corporations –Staff/volunteer training –Contacts and relationships Branding and Marketing Priority development Program creation and delivery Back office efficiency Information technology Where you agree to collaborate and shares resources