It may be advisable to print this document as it is long.

The children's fund was supposed to be an opportunity for the voluntary sector to obtain funds and shape policy. But, once again, local authorities have taken the lead. Sally Gillen asks whether the voluntary sector has been marginalized.

When the government announced a £450 million children's fund to tackle social exclusion through community projects in November 2000, it said the projects should be voluntary sector-led and duly set aside £70 million for a local network, to be administered directly to the voluntary sector.

But, significantly, the bulk of the money, £380 million, while intended for the voluntary sector was given to council chief executives to administer. By April of this year it became clear that it was local authorities and not voluntary sector organisations that were chiefly responsible for drawing up proposals for the fund. The government's ambitions for the voluntary sector to lead the way had, it seemed, come to nothing.

Was anybody surprised? Certainly none of the delegates that attended the National Association for Councils for Voluntary Services (NACVS) annual conference earlier this month were. They asked a representative of the Children and Young People's Fund why the government had chosen, once again, to administer the money to council chief executives. It was, they said, yet another example of the government bypassing them and ensuring that councils were given control of the purse strings. In his response, the government official blamed the decision to administer the money to councils on the absence of a central point of contact for the voluntary sector through which the money could be distributed.

The NACVS also used its conference to unveil new research confirming the extent to which the voluntary sector's contribution to social inclusion work is largely unfunded (News, page 7, 13 September).

The NACVS's research and the distribution of the children's fund money both serve to highlight the problems the voluntary sector faces when it comes to obtaining funding for social inclusion work. But they also raise questions about the understanding the government has of the relationship between the voluntary sector and statutory bodies, and about the structure of the voluntary sector itself. While the government's desire to involve the voluntary sector in social inclusion is undoubtedly genuine, it is easy to see its message as ultimately unworkable.

As a spokesperson for Urban Forum, an umbrella group for voluntary and community groups with an interest in regeneration, points out: "Central government may say that it wants the voluntary sector to be involved, but the mechanics of funding benefit local authorities. The voluntary sector just doesn't have the resources to work alongside local authorities."

Gillian Pugh, chief executive of children's charity the Coram Family, agrees: "The mechanisms in local authorities don't work well for the voluntary sector."

But Pugh warns voluntary agencies against stretching themselves beyond their means. "It's very unhelpful to bypass councils' involvement," she says. "The voluntary sector cannot do it on their own. The problem is the government thinks the voluntary sector can deliver more than it can. The notion of partnership is good, but it will be very difficult to make it work. We need to ensure that the voluntary sector is involved in the planning and delivery of services so they are not in the position of competing for funds."

Lack of resources has long been a major barrier to voluntary sector organisations accessing funds. Siobhan Downes, of the newly-created Brent Association for Voluntary Action, says: "Putting together bids for money is very difficult and time consuming. We just don't have the resources."

Urban Forum's spokesperson adds: "There is a traditional problem in the voluntary sector in terms of resources. People need expertise in filling out forms. Identifying funding sources is also a problem. We constantly hear from community groups that they don't have the time to research funding groups in their area."

But even where the government has specifically targeted the voluntary sector, as with the children's fund, it is clear that the structure of the sector does not make it easy for money to be administered directly.

Helen Bush, acting head of policy at the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, admits: "There is a gap between what the government wants from the sector and the infrastructure that exists." But she is reluctant to see the structure changed, suggesting instead that the government should do much more to inform the sector about what funds are available, perhaps via a one-stop shop-type website.

With the emphasis on partnership heralded as the key to delivering social inclusion it has become clear that the voluntary sector needs assistance in participating in partnerships. The government has responded with the creation of the £36 million Community Empowerment Fund (CEF) to help the voluntary sector become involved in local strategic partnerships (LSPs). LSPs, which are made up of people from public services, local businesses, the voluntary sector and residents, are being established to deliver the government's Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy locally. The strategy, launched in January 2001, aims to ensure that within the next 10 to 20 years no one will be seriously disadvantaged by where they live. The CEF money will be administered via regional government offices to England's 88 most deprived areas.

Welcoming the CEF, NCVO policy officer Sally Cooke says: "It's great that it exists because it shows the government recognises that the sector needs funds to be involved in local strategic partnerships. But there are major problems with the timing and the expectations on the voluntary sector."

She adds: "The CEF for this year still hasn't been released because the decision over which organisations should administer the fund is still being made."

A spokesperson for the government's Active Community Unit, which helps community organisations to strengthen their partnerships with government, says: "The CEF money is to be used to form community networks, which will work with government offices. The money will belong completely to the voluntary sector. We're about to issue guidance on community chests, which is a £50 million fund over three years and is available for the 88 Community Empowerment Fund areas. This will mean the voluntary sector will have direct access to funding as it will be administered directly to the voluntary sector. It won't go through local authorities."

But there are already indications that government advice on the CEF has not been particularly useful to the sector. Downes says Brent Association for Voluntary Action has already missed out on the opportunity to influence Brent Council's spending of its £10,000 share of the neighbourhood renewal fund for this year simply because they weren't ready for it. Downes explains: "We didn't realise the impact of local strategic partnerships until early this summer. The information that has come out has been very piecemeal. We haven't had a huge amount of time to get things ready and it's very difficult trying to get groups together when they are so busy. There are 100 groups involved at the moment and about 1,000 groups in Brent."

But even with the CEF, Cooke is doubtful that there will ever truly be a level playing field. "It'll always be difficult for them to be equal partners," she says. "Local authorities will be held responsible for the services that are delivered. But it is great to see the voluntary sector have a place at the table."

Whether the fund will succeed in establishing an infrastructure that enables the government to channel money directly into the voluntary sector beyond its three-year life span is a question no one is prepared to answer. Cooke says cautiously that its success will vary from area to area and hinges on how well the statutory bodies work with the voluntary sector.

The success of the CEF will certainly test the voluntary sector's mettle as well. It is envisaged that a voluntary organisation will be chosen by the rest of the sector to administer the fund. This set-up promises to be one of the most contentious parts of the CEF. Urban Forum's spokesperson says: "There are bound to be teething troubles with the CEF when it comes to deciding which groups administers the fund because if it can't be agreed within the sector, the government office will step in and nominate an organisation. But it will be the first time the voluntary sector is taking charge."

In the meantime, it must be remembered that the CEF is only for 88 areas and may not necessarily prove a solution to general funding problems.

As NACVS's director Lis Pritchard points out: "This is not general infrastructure funding. It has a very specific purpose, which is to set up community networks in just 88 areas. There remains the problem that the vast majority of councils for voluntary services tell us that they do not receive the £85,000 funding they are they are supposed to get from local authorities.

"Last year, Scotland had its funding doubled. Also Scotland and Wales receive central funding. We're not necessarily saying that we want to be funded centrally, but we would like the government to ensure that local authorities do provide the funding."

--------------------------------------------------------

Law changes needed

Sarah Wellard reports on a call for a change in the law to protect people with learning difficulties from sexual abuse.

This week the learning difficulty charity Mencap, together with learning difficulty support organisations Respond and Voice UK, published a report highlighting the problem of sexual abuse of people with learning difficulties^.1 The charities want the law changed to increase the protection for these vulnerable people, and to make it easier to convict perpetrators.

People with learning difficulties may be vulnerable to sexual abuse because they often lack power within relationships and their impairment may mean they fail to anticipate potentially abusive situations or to understand that abuse has occurred.

The report claims that the problem is widespread with as many as 1,400 new cases each year. Yet only around 6 per cent of abusers are prosecuted.

Nicola Harney, a partner at the legal firm Stewarts who specialises in compensation claims on behalf of people who have suffered abuse, explains that there have been few successful criminal prosecutions.

"It's very rare for the word of the victim to be accepted against the perpetrator's without the testimony of another non-disabled adult or compelling forensic evidence," she explains. "Most of my clients are making their claims on the back of an investigation, where the Crown Prosecution Service has said there is insufficient evidence to proceed. Civil cases carry a lower burden of proof so victims can still get compensation, but the perpetrator isn't sent to prison."

In 1998, the government set up a review body to examine the law on sex offences. Organisations for people with learning difficulties are represented on the reference group. Although there is a consensus that law reform is needed, the Home Office is still considering how and whether to act.

However, adults with learning difficulties do look set to get a fairer deal under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. The act, introduced after Community Care's A Fair Hearing: Justice for People with Learning Difficulties campaign, includes measures to make it easier for vulnerable people to give evidence in court. People with learning difficulties may be allowed to give evidence through an independent intermediary who can interpret what they have said. They will also be able to use screens or video links to avoid having to face their abuser.

Michelle McCarthy, senior lecturer in learning difficulties at Kent University, says the changes look good on paper, but warns that they will only work if judges take them on board. "It depends very much on the attitude of judges," she explains. "It's not going to be terribly helpful if a judge says a person can't have these rights."

Another important change that should go some way towards protecting vulnerable adults is the introduction of a new national framework for joint working between social services, police, health and voluntary organisations.² By the end of October, directors of social services will be expected to have implemented multi-agency procedures for dealing with incidents of abuse.

But campaigners believe further changes in the law are vital if more convictions are to be secured. Mencap says that it is too easy for perpetrators to evade conviction by arguing that the victim consented to sex. "A lot of abuse is pure and simple rape," a spokesperson argues. "Even with non-disabled people you get very few convictions because rape hinges on the issue of consent."

Because the CPS knows how hard it is to secure a conviction for rape, they reduce the charge to the lesser one of "sex with a mental defective" - as it is demeaningly termed under the Sexual Offences Act 1956. But this only carries a maximum sentence of two years.

Mencap believes people with severe learning difficulties should be given similar legal protection to children. This would make it an offence for anyone to have sex with a person who is deemed unable to consent to sex. The new offence should carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. They also want sex between care staff and their clients made to be made illegal.

Whether such moves would risk criminalising consensual sexual activity or infringing on the rights of people with learning difficulties are issues that cannot be ignored. But Mencap's spokesperson argues that failure to act could mean failure to protect. "We believe passionately in the right of people to engage in sexual activity," he says. "But the responsible approach is to protect vulnerable people from abusers who know exactly what they're doing."

¹ Mencap, Respond and Voice UK, Behind Closed Doors, Preventing Sexual Abuse Against Adults with a Learning Disability, Mencap, September 2001.

² Department of Health, No Secrets: Guidance on Developing and Implementing Multi-agency Policies and Procedures to Protect Vulnerable Adults from Abuse, DoH, March 2000.