Bad News Stories

Just when you think that things can't get any worse, you hear more shocking stories of what's going on out there. In this part of the website we provide a platform for you to moan and rage, to expose incompetence, the disrespect, the arrogance and the foolishness that goes under the guise of partnership, compacts, community empowerment, capacity building, commissioning, choice, and the rest of the jargon designed to insist that day is in fact night.

Here we expose the reality of the abuse of power by public bodies, the co-option of voluntary bodies by State agendas, and of the struggles experienced at the frontline - to meet local needs, to retain integrity and to speak truth back to power.

Good news or bad news - make up your own mind

We didn't know where to put this on the website. It's a story of all the bad things that are going on which led to the Coalition. But it also shows bravery and resilience in response to abuse of power. So you'll find this story under both good and bad news.

Advocacy in Darlington is an inspiring story of how you don’t have to take it. Manager Chris Close tells how they stood up to Social Services in the interests of the people they work with, survived withdrawal of funding and went on to find other ways of continuing the work.

It shows the vital role of independent advocacy, and the need for funders who provide services to recognise this. Also it illustrates how tendering can be used to get rid of people perceived as troublemakers. And most of all, it shows that it is possible to survive loss of funding, continuing to work in a way that is congruent with your beliefs and principles. As Chris says… We are now poor in money but rich in spirit and in camaraderie. This is our community and not the property of a self appointed few who happen to have power and money. With a will and shared knowledge, we really can reclaim our communities and take power back from people only interested in themselves and not in the community they were paid to serve”. Read You don't have to take it anymore to hear Chris’ story…..

That single issue thing....

This is the latest hare to have been set running by Government and the Commission on Integration and Cohesion. It's a policy which encourages funders to cut money to groups working with marginalised peoples, particularly those from secular black and minority ethnic groups such as Southall Black Sisters - while at the same time encouraging faith group activities. The policy is still under consultation but already being enthusiastically implemented. And all under the policy platform of "social inclusion". This is what Chris Walsh, a Coalition supporter, from Wise Owls has to say about it.....

"This policy is now being introduced for all equalities groups through the industry quangos like EHRC and HEAR – they are saying that any specific equalities organisation should not be funded and indeed may be breaking the equalities law as we are trying to help a specific group (in our case, many of whom are BAME and women) and therefore according to them discriminating against people who are not from that group.

On top of that there is no democracy in who is appointed to be on their boards, make strategy, policy and funding decisions – and more and more religious leaders are being invited on. There is no representation for those of us fighting age discrimination amongst older workers – they have appointed pensioner groups to represent us like Age Concern etc.

We need to be campaigning across all of the key excluded groups – age, gender, race and ethnicity, disability and sexuality for a democratic equalities movement representing all of us. Resources should go to those of us delivering on the ground instead of unelected, unrepresentative equalities industry quangos with their ‘not so great and not very good’ appointees.”

Funding criteria get narrower and narrower

Bob Widdowson describes the slow drip drip of what is being lost and what is taking its place in “a small advice service in a northern town. Been around for 20 years. Well used, three staff, run down premises and not much in the way of technology. Only such service for miles around. Lottery funding runs out and no replacement funding there. Local council, the main funder for many years, offers a three year funding deal, but at a reduced amount and with no inflation. Welcome to the world of fundraising…..

Many weeks researching possible funders. Lottery again? No grants for front line services - ‘innovative’ partnerships yes, but not direct advice. Community legal service? May fund means tested services but carries major administrative burdens and what about those who do not qualify for means tested advice. Charitable trusts? Millions of them and endless hours spent researching. No salary costs funded, must be innovative, will only fund specific projects, needs match funding, only fund specific geographical areas. Private sector funding? Ditto. And, of course, all have the killer question at the end of the application form – how will you fund this project when our funding ends? To say we haven’t got a clue or we will we do further fundraising is not the answer they seek.

Or we could open a café and become a ‘social enterprise’. But we are advice workers not entrepreneurs. Each application takes two or three days work. It requires us to have extensively researched the demand. How many people will you help, what will be the outcomes, where do they live, what age categories will they be? We could make it up of course but we have that nagging conscience that requires us always to be honest and ethical.

In the meantime of course we are diverted from giving advice and help to people who do not understand that our priority now is to fill lengthy forms asking questions that require extensive work to answer. So begins the downward spiral. We are failures. We can’t compete so let’s leave it to those who can. The voluntary (?) sector that understands the language of commissioning, contract, effectiveness, business planning and strategic objectives. Or we could leave it to the national helplines. After all who wants to pop to a neighbourhood service to have a cup of tea, get a bit of advice on that nagging problem and be seen as an individual rather than a “user’? “

A slave to State interests....

We bumped into a community researcher, a local resident, who had been busy talking to fellow tenants about their concerns and what they needed on the Estate. She had been doing this with the support of a local voluntary group. She was worried and didn't know what to do. She had been asked by the local CVS whether or not this work was part of the Local Area Agreement. If it was not, she was given the impression that she'd be in deep trouble. What should she do? The voluntary group decided that now was a good time to have a meeting about the state of the voluntary sector, the local politics and how to manage the co-option of their local CVS towards State interests and away from local autonomy.

Now you see it, now you don't.....

And what about the story of the local CAB who found out that they had to "tender" for their own services, of the other local advice services given a day to tender for the CAB money, and of the Council who said that this was challenging but wouldn't apologise for it.

If it works, break it......

Then there's the tale about the innovative initiative which supported local people to assist their communities to access health services. It was done with such success that it was lauded by the local Primary Care Trust and elsewhere, and who then asked for advice on how to replicate this. And who then withdrew the money and allocated it to those with no experience in doing the work.

Coming in your direction soon......?

A friend sent me this and it is apparently being added (or proposed to be added) to contracts for all staff at a University. It is so bizarre that it could be a hoax, but it's not.

1 I have clear performance goals that encompass task delivery and demonstration of my competences.

2 These goals have been mutually agreed and are subject to regular review throughout the year with my manager. As a result I am always clear about my level of performance

3 I appreciate that measurement of my performance will be a mix of hard and soft outcomes and that effort alone will not dictate my performance rating.

4 I understand the link between my performance and the level of reward I can receive. If I under- or over-perform against my targets I am clear on what the impact would be on my salary, bonus and career development.

5 I understand that if I continually develop and apply my skills on a sustained basis this will be reflected in my salary progression and bonus potential.

6 I can appreciably improve my annual financial rewards through salary progression should I over-perform.

7 If I should start to under-perform I have confidence that the University and my manager will respond positively and will support me in improving my performance . I have access to a strong support network in addition to the help I will receive from my manager. I know that if I under-perform my salary, inclusive of cost of living increases, will not progress.

8 I trust my manager because I know he/she has undergone a rigorous programme of training around managing and measuring performance. Indeed I have undertaken training as an appraisee which has helped me to make the most of the performance dialogue I have with my manager."

If you have a Bad News Story to tell, please email us. Please don't worry about formatting or style, we'll edit and check with you for approval. Let us know if you want your or your organisation's identity kept confidential.