Funding cuts of up to 20% hurting voluntary organisations

FUNDING cuts of up to 20% are forcing grassroots voluntary sector organisations supporting elderly, homeless and disabled people to cut staffing numbers and drastically reducing services to the most vulnerable.

IMPACT trade union’s health and welfare division conference last night heard that one of the reasons the cutbacks were not attracting wider public anger was that workers across the voluntary sector were making huge sacrifices in terms of their working hours and pay in order to keep their organisations going.

Maeve McCarthy-Barrett, branch secretary of IMPACT’s Cork branch, told the conference in Tralee that staff in the sector had forgone increments, taken pay cuts and opted for a shorter working week.

Ms McCarthy-Barrett called on fellow delegates to resist to any further cuts in funding in the community and voluntary sector.

“In 2010, the Harvey report estimated that there were approximately 6,100 voluntary and community organisations in Ireland, employing over 53,000 people,” she said. “The estimated value of the sector to the economy was 6.5billion. Last year, budgets for voluntary and community organisations were slashed by an average of between 18% and 20%. The Harvey report estimates that 5,000 posts in the sector were lost as a result of the cuts; a loss of just under 10% of the sector’s entire workforce.”

Sophia O’Reilly chair of IMPACT’s health division said the sector was needed more than ever as more people became marginalised and vulnerable.

According to Ms McCarthy-Barrett, one of the problems at present was that projects managed by community and voluntary organisations are given lump sums to employ workers, provide premises and run programmes.

“One of the continuing financial stresses in the sector is that extraordinary costs, such as roof repairs, must also come out of year-to-year funding, even though it is not permitted for any organisations to hold over small amounts of money for contingency purposes into the next calendar year,” she said. “With separate funding streams for capital, wage and running costs, it would mean that programme costs could be provided equitably across the sector. This would better reflect the real costs of providing services and retaining experienced staff.”