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 Cliffordd.clifford@tsrc.ac.uk

www.tsrc.ac.uk – under ‘Publications’