equalities event, david clifford, third sector research centre, 8 nov 2012
TRANSCRIPT
Voluntary sector organisations and spatial inequality: what do we know?what can we know?
David CliffordThird Sector Research Centre
Spatial patterns in deprivation
Deprivation is concentrated geographically•Particular variation at local scale•These differences are persistent•A fundamental feature of social life
Main question
What are the implications of these spatial patterns in deprivation for the voluntary sector?
-here, particular focus on distribution of organisations
Why? (1) Expectations of unevenness
‘some social and geographical contexts seem to provide a much more fertile soil for voluntary action than others’ (Wolfenden, 1978)
‘the resources are frequently not available where the problems are most severe’
(Salamon 1987)
Why? (2) Unevenness has implications..
..for equity of provision of services and amenities
..for opportunities to participate in voluntary group activities
Why? (3) Lack of empirical work..
Is there actually evidence for unevenness?
Lack of work examining geographical differences in prevalence of voluntary organisations..
Particular lack of work at local scale
Basic idea
To examine geographical differences in the prevalence of local voluntary organisations
How?
Prevalence of local voluntary organisations=
No. of ‘neighbourhood’ organisations ____________________
Total population
Survey data (NSTSO 2008)
Office for National Statistics
Comparing between local areas with different levels of deprivation
What organisations are counted?
• Third sector organisations (charities, CLGs, CICs, IPSs)..
• ..that appear on national registers
Therefore, more of a focus on ‘formal’ voluntary sector, rather than more ‘informal’ community sector
A partial perspective
• Only organisations working at the local level • Many places of worship not included
Results: overall pattern
0
.2
.4
.6
.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Pre
vale
nce
(p
er 1
,00
0 p
eopl
e)
020406080100Deprivation (percentiles)
Results: by size
0
.2
.4
.6
.8
020406080100
1k-10k
0
.2
.4
.6
.8
020406080100
10k-100k
0
.2
.4
.6
.8
020406080100
100k+
Results: by main role
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
020406080100Deprivation (percentiles)
Delivery of public services
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
020406080100Deprivation (percentiles)
Buildings and/or facilities
Results: by receipt of public funding
0
.2
.4
.6
.8
1
1.2
Pre
vale
nce
(p
er 1
,00
0 p
eopl
e)
020406080100Deprivation (percentiles)
No public income Public income
Results: by role and public funding
0
.1
.2
.3
020406080100
Delivery of public services
0
.1
.2
.3
020406080100
Buildings and/or facilities
No public income Public income
Results: robustness?
Differences in propensity to register between different kinds of areas?
Differences in propensity to respond to surveybetween different kinds of areas?
Results: summary
For first time, illustrates significant geographical variation at local level in prevalence of registered voluntary organisations.
Results: do they matter?Implications for equity of provision:
Neighbourhood groups‘will be able to bid to take over the running of
community amenities, such as parks and libraries, that are under threat’..
‘will be given a right of first refusal to buy state-owned community assets that are for sale or facing closure’ (Conservatives, 2010)
Results: do they matter?
Some communities will be much better equipped than others to take on these new powers
Government funding is particularly important to the voluntary sector in the most deprived areas
Way forward?
• Examine specific kinds of organisations– NSTSO: data anonymised– Charity Commission data: search for specific
groups• But no information on source of funding
– Which organisations would be particularly interesting to look at?
Beneficiary groups: what information is collected in large scale datasets?
David CliffordThird Sector Research Centre
Ideas for analysis..?
• What organisations are you particularly interested in?– Chance to look at what data are available
Charity Commission (CC) data
Information on:•Headline income and expenditure
– Detailed income and expenditure streams for those above £500k in income
•Local authorities in which operating•Year of registration
Beneficiary groups in CC data
• Children/ young people• Elderly/ old people• People with disabilities• People of a particular ethnic or racial origin• Other charities / voluntary bodies• Other defined groups• The general public/ mankindBeware – charities may have ticked many boxes!
NSTSO data
• Information on: size, age, local authority, scale of operation
• Information on sources of income• Questions relating to relationships with local
authority
Beneficiary groups in NSTSO data
• More detailed• More focused: asked for no more than 2/3
boxes
Beneficiary groups in NSTSO data
• Older people• Children (under 15)• Young people (aged 16-24)• People with physical disabilities • People with learning difficulties• People with mental health needs• People from Black and Minority Ethnic
communities…..and others
Opportunity to relate to theory..
• Billis and Glennerster (1998) – idea of comparative advantage: – voluntary organisations can have an advantage
compared with other sectors when catering for certain categories of user disadvantage
– Therefore, may be particular impetus for government to fund these groups?
David [email protected]
www.tsrc.ac.uk – under ‘Publications’