Community Links

Community Links blog

Archive for the ‘Informal Economy’ Category

The impact of the emergency budget on Newham

Thursday, June 24th, 2010

Emergency Budget There has been so much macro-analysis of the emergency budget this week that we wanted to see how it will impact on local people in the London borough of Newham where we work. It’s difficult to analyse the changes as they are going to be introduced over the next few years, and we won’t see the detail until the 20th October when the Comprehensive Spending Review is published.

Newham has worked hard to get off the bottom of the league tables when it comes to multiple deprivation, but we have seen the consequences of the recession over the last two years as demand for our services has soared – those seeking debt advice have doubled, and those seeking employment support have tripled in last 18 months.

So here’s a snapshot of what these changes mean for local people in east London.

Benefits and Tax Credits

  • The three year freeze (should read ‘cut in real terms’) of Child Benefit will affect 41,035 families in Newham who receive Child Benefit (a total of 79,320 children), a powerful tool in the fight against child poverty. Newham has one of the youngest populations in the country so we will be affected disproportionately.
  • We welcome the increase of Child Tax Credit by an extra £150 per year. This will help the 38,600 Newham families who are currently in receipt of Child or Working Tax Credits (highest take-up in London) offset the cuts of their Child Benefit.
  • Even though the government cut the free schools initiative being trialled (very successfully) in Newham and other boroughs, we are heartened to hear of Newham Council’s commitment to continue with it anyway.
  • A total of 1,910 people (18.8% of those on JSA) have been claiming JSA for longer than 12 months in Newham, many of whom we help back into work through our very successful employment programmes. We recently submitted a paper to DWP proposing how the new Work Programme must be designed so that it doesn’t leave behind those who most need its support – read a copy here.
  • We are concerned about the Housing Benefit being withdrawn from people on Jobseekers Allowance after 12 months. Particularly if at this point they have to go on the compulsory Work Programme. It’s contradictory and may lead to a massive increase in homelessness, debt or cash-in-hand work.
  • Key out-of-work benefits are claimed by 30,440 residents   (18.3% of the local population). Through delivering an advice service to 9,000 people each year and our research and campaigning work we know that fundamental reform of the benefit system is an absolute imperative. So we were heartened to hear that changes are underway, including work incentives which we’ve been lobbying for. We look forward to working with DWP over the summer as it prepares a new Welfare Reform Bill.

Housing
Current LHA rates for Newham top out at £350 for a 5-bedroom house, so Newham residents won’t be affected by the cap.

Tax
We welcome the government following up on one of our policy recommendations to increase the personal tax allowance threshold. This latest increase to £7,475 will take about 10,500 local residents out of the tax system (15.8% of Newham’s working age population), putting more money into the pockets of those who need it most.

However the VAT increases will adversely affect those poorest in our society. The richest 10% spend £1 in every £25 of their income on VAT. The poorest 10% spend £1 in £7.

Jobs
Where are the jobs? The assumption in the budget is that the private sector will fill the deficit by providing more jobs. And that it will be easier for people on benefits to move into work. But again where are the jobs now?

  • In Newham there are 46 jobs for every 100 people of working age. Compared to 94 for London, and 83 nationally. In other words, people either don’t work, or have to travel outside the borough for work.
  • Nine JSA claimants are competing for each unfilled job vacancy in Newham, compared with a national average of 5:1. And there are 10,196 people are claiming JSA in Newham. That’s an awful lot of competition from just one of the 33 boroughs in London.
  • The types of work available to people in Newham are in the service sector (representing 89.9% of all jobs in the borough). Often insecure and temporary (32% are part time), low paid (21% get paid less than £7 an hour) and low skilled (24.2% fail to reach level 4 at Key Stage 2 – average of English and Maths).

Public Sector
Newham residents rely more heavily upon their public services than other more affluent areas. Some local services are already at bursting point as demand outstrips supply. When these are cut where will local people turn to?

  • 36% of jobs in Newham are in the public sector (top 10% in the country). Newham Council has already had to cut £30million (c.7%) from this year’s budget. However if we are to see departmental cuts of 25% over the course of this parliament and a council tax freeze, how may of these jobs will go in Newham? Public sector funding also supports a diverse voluntary sector, delivering a wide range of services. The prospect of 25% cuts is not good for those who work in the sector, or for those they support.

It’s early days to see how this budget will actually impact on local people in east London. But we do know that as belts have tightened in the past it has often been those with least that suffer most. Let’s hope this coalition government’s rhetoric of fairness and support for the most vulnerable actually plays out into reality.

The consultation process for the Comprehensive Spending Review should be launched today (24th June) and the timetable runs through to the autumn – so get involved, we will be.

Note: Current data sources have been used where possible, and can be provided upon request.

Welfare reform proposals get a mixed reaction from the most successful New Deal project in London

Thursday, May 27th, 2010

New Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Iain Duncan Smith’s welfare reform announcements today (and his simultaneous Guardian charm offensive) get a mixed reaction from colleagues around Community Links who, amongst other things, run the most successful New Deal project – supporting long-term unemployed back into work – in London and the South East.

On the one hand, we’ve been calling for wholesale reform of the benefits system for many years, so it’s good to see him demanding it too. His recognition of the problem of work incentives in the benefit system – whereby people can end up worse off and less secure on taking a low-paid job – is welcome.

The benefits system needs to be designed so people can take stepping stones into well paid and secure work, rather than leaving them high and dry as soon as a temporary and low-paid job appears. Equally, it must be ready to pick them up again quickly if the job ends, both to prevent the cycle of debt that often begins in that few weeks between the last pay cheque and the first benefit cheque, and to give people the reassurance that taking the job in the first place won’t jeopardise their situation further down the line. Whether he can get these large and expensive reforms through the Treasury remains to be seen.

However, his continuing adherence to the idea of sanctions for ‘those who won’t work’ is worrying. We know that even the long-term unemployed want to work, but some face many and complex barriers – lack of training or education, lack of support at the Jobcentre, health or family problems. For some, it takes several cycles through our six month programme before they’re in a position to accept a job. Cutting their benefits after the first cycle will plunge them further into poverty and further from the job market, costing more, and stigmatising where government should be supporting.

Finally, the Work Programme model – whereby charities like ours (and private contractors) take on more of a role in supporting people into work – has good aspects, not least the ‘black box approach’ that would let us design bespoke programmes for individual jobseekers. Yet the signs are that, by making the contracts so big that only large multinational companies can apply, they will lose the unique contribution a charity like ours can make to supporting the long-term unemployed. The system will need to be carefully designed, and properly funded, to make sure this doesn’t happen.

Overall, much of the rhetoric – punishments and stigmatisation aside – sounds promising, but the detail is still not there. At the launch this morning Duncan Smith said he wanted to work with charities like ours to hammer out the detail over the next few months. If this is a genuine offer then we are very willing to help him shape the system so that it best serves the needs of the two thousand jobseekers we see every year, the tens of thousands in Newham, and the millions nationwide.

Developing an EU platform to address undeclared work

Monday, May 17th, 2010

Amsterdam, a city known for its permissive approach to life, was the venue for a fascinating two day meeting on undeclared work recently. We were invited as the only social partner following our research and campaigns on the informal economy. It was hosted by Regioplan, a research organisation based in the Netherlands, and attended by various bigwigs (mainly from governments) from western European countries, to assess the feasibility of developing an EU platform to address undeclared work.

(more…)

Pre-election karaoke

Wednesday, May 5th, 2010

Amid the din of election coverage, it’s nice to be reminded that most of the world is carrying on as normal – working, volunteering, even dancing. Today, for example, is Community Links’ annual pensioners’ tea dance and karaoke party, organised by a group of volunteers from one of our corporate supporters. The hubbub emanating from the hall, right in the middle of our office, is a nice if distracting reminder that the good society is being supported every day, and no doubt will continue whoever makes it in to government.

Something that might not make it through the election period, however, is our proposal for a Community Allowance, which has been sitting with DWP for months, and is in danger of disappearing completely. After the election, expect to hear much more about it, as we try and persuade whoever’s in government of its obvious merits.

Until then, however, it’s sobering to remember that for many of the pensioners downstairs, the people coming through our doors for advice, or the young people we support into work, the next few years are going to be pretty tough, irrespective of tomorrow’s result. The recession hits the people we work with hardest and longest, and it’ll take more than some karaoke to sort that out. Proposals like the Community Allowance, which rewards work that strengthens communities and supports people back into work, could be crucial.

DWP’s mixed messages on benefits

Friday, April 9th, 2010

Following on from our earlier post on benefit fraud, it’s worth noting an interesting debate on the subject in the Lords last week. In 2009 James Purnell’s Welfare Reform Bill was passed and in it was the controversial ‘one strike and you’re out’ amendment; section 24 of the new Act. After the first caution or administrative penalty, let alone conviction, a claimant will have their benefits stopped for a four week period. If this happens twice (two strikes) in a five year period their benefits will be stopped for thirteen weeks.

(more…)

Benefit fraud crackdowns drive people further into poverty

Friday, April 9th, 2010

It’s dispiriting to see the Conservatives today follow Labour’s lead in proposing even harsher sanctions for people accused of benefit fraud. As we’ve pointed out before, there are several problems with this increasingly punitive approach.

Firstly, from our experience giving advice to over 12,000 people each year in Newham, we know that almost all those defrauding the system do so out of need, not greed. They need a few hours work to tide them over – to pay a surprise bill, or replace the microwave. Declaring it to the Jobcentre would mean any earnings are deducted from benefits, leaving them with no extra money. Punishing these people is unfair, but also destructive – they need stepping stones to a job and higher income, not sanctions which push them further into poverty. The occasional extreme case of greed you read about in the papers does not reflect the lives of those coming through our doors.

Secondly, benefit fraud is not as big a problem as either party might have you believe. Less than one percent of benefit claimants commit fraud (56,000 out of 5.8m), and more money is wasted each year on error (around £2bn) than is given to people claiming fraudulently. Meanwhile, about £1.2bn is underpaid, meaning people desperately in need of benefits do not receive them. Advertising campaigns that flame the public perception that everyone on benefits cheats the system are actively stigmatising and harmful.

Thirdly, while both parties would argue that sanctions act as a deterrent, they don’t seem to have considered the fate of those they sanction. These, by definition, are not people with wealth to fall back on. Denying people benefits, for 13 weeks or 3 years, is going to force them further into debt and eventually destitution. It’s hard to see how this is addressing the causes of poverty.

In short, politicians might be surprised to discover how much fraud would go down if they sorted out the benefits system so it worked better for the people it’s meant to serve. In the meantime, don’t drive people further into poverty by imposing heavy-handed sanctions on people who, in the main, are just trying to get together enough money to get by.

Benefit fraud crackdown will plunge more people into poverty, not tackle its causes

Friday, April 9th, 2010

Our press release reacting to today’s Conservative proposal. More thoughts later.

Most benefit fraud is committed out of need not greed, and harsher penalties will not work, says leading grassroots charity Community Links reacting to Conservative proposals to further penalise benefit fraud.

(more…)

Charlotte’s story – unemployment and the Jobcentre

Wednesday, March 31st, 2010

Charlotte is 19, lives in East London, and is currently unemployed.

“I left school at 16, with 10 GCSEs. I’ve worked since I was 14, doing cash in hand jobs – waitressing mostly – and I also have an NVQ Level 2 in hair dressing. When I was 17 I had to go on income support because I broke my leg and smashed a vertebra in my back. The Jobcentre was good about that, and they gave me advice, but that was because I wasn’t allowed to work. When I was about 18 I started working formally as a market researcher, but I lost my job in September last year.

I tried as long as possible not to go on benefits, and lived off some savings for as long as I could. But I couldn’t find a job after so long that I had to sign on.

(more…)

Partnership working and the importance of values

Tuesday, March 30th, 2010

Last week I was up in Manchester for Oxfam’s annual Country Leaning Review for their UK Poverty work. The day’s objectives were to:

  • Meet other Oxfam partners and hear about their work
  • Feed in to wider Oxfam’s thinking on developing strong and healthy partnerships
  • Review the quality of Oxfam’s partner relationships in England, and what we could do to improve them

The day started with (inevitably) a few presentations, from Single Parent Action Network, ourselves, Church Action on Poverty, and the Community Allowance, followed by some constructive discussions examining the relationships that Oxfam have, in terms of what works and what could be improved.

People fed back about what they liked about working with Oxfam…

  • Partners shared common values – a solid starting point for a partnership.
  • Oxfam provided flexible funding for its partners, which in some cases was used to leverage other monies into a project.
  • Association with the Oxfam brand can open doors and increase the profile of a partner and the project.
  • Oxfam can open up and gain access to networks where others cannot.
  • Coalition working was a strong factor with Oxfam.

And what could be improved…

  • Partners would like to be involved in participating in the development of Oxfam’s strategy in the UK.
  • Increased communications between the three work areas: race, gender and livelihoods.
  • Links with international partners to be able to share and learn.
  • Sharing learning in a structured approach.

In reflection the day highlighted the complex nature of partnerships and the continued effort that needs to go into them: constant nurture, development and communication over the long term – much like any relationship that you care about. Way too much emphasis is placed on the catch all term “partnership”, and I’m not going to get into that debate now. But I do know that I find them hard work and at times challenging, but when I work at them then they can be very rewarding.

For me the basis for any good partnership starts with shared values – if you can get that foundation in place then you’re half way there. In our partnership with Oxfam those values include a ground up approach to tackling poverty, building stronger communities, and taking a holistic approach to working with people and communities.

In the past we’ve worked with Oxfam on our Need NOT Greed campaign, the Community Allowance and most recently some work measuring the informal economy in Salford (the report will be published in the summer).

I hope to build our partnership with Oxfam, which is in its sixth year now, with many more projects to come.

The Young Person’s Guarantee and some hidden bits of the budget

Thursday, March 25th, 2010

Since everyone with any political interest whatsoever has commented on the budget in the last 24 hours, we thought it worth picking out a couple of the more hidden bits of good news. It’s no coincidence they’re also bits we’ve been involved in.

The first is some more detail on Social Impact Bonds (pg 101, box 6.2, if you’re feeling keen). The first pilot of this innovative new funding mechanism, which has been hugely influenced by our Co-founder David Robinson, was announced last week. In the budget, government announces the potential for some more work with Leeds and Bradford Councils. We hope the bond will develop into a powerful new way to fund social change, particularly the innovative preventative work that is currently so hard to fund.

Secondly is an update on the Hidden Economy Advisory Group (pg 80, 5.74), on which our Policy and Communications Manager Aaron Barbour has sat for the last few months. Although it doesn’t reveal many details, this budget report does highlight the lack of support for people – particularly those running small informal businesses like gardening or decorating – to move into the formal economy. The group will be looking at exactly how to provide this route in more detail over the next few months, and we look forward to being part of those discussions.

Finally, we’ll join many others in welcoming the extension of the Young Persons Guarantee. However, since it’s so new, it has got us wondering how well it’s working. The manager of our New Deal service gives a mixed review – it has certainly been valuable to some of the young people we work with, but its effectiveness – in terms of getting people into something useful – has varied dramatically depending on which Jobcentre the individuals are dealing with. This cuts to the heart of a problem we come across all the time – provision at a Jobcentre can vary from excellent to appalling, and there are very few ways to hold individual staff or centres to account.

We’ll be looking into both these issues – the effectiveness of the Young Person’s Guarantee, and the performance of Jobcentres – in the near future.