The key findings of the initial research project from the UK was based around provider questionnaires and interviews with a wide range of providers, centring on the UK steering groups working definition of disadvantage “those enduring all aspects of economic and social exclusion which includes an element of poverty, resulting in low personal self esteem and limited access to information and other support for self-employment.” is as follows:-
Fragmented Diversity of Provision
Across the South East there is a fragmented diversity of provision for business start-up support for disadvantaged groups in this region. The only exceptions appear to be the National programmes from such bodies as Action for Blind People, The Prince’s Trust or the region wide programme of Business Ability. There is no provision of substance across the geographical area to satisfy all but limited disadvantaged groups. Indeed the provision is so diverse that it is almost impossible to track and map it without considerable resources. We have however managed to research a clear flavour of what is available.
Good Practice Examples not Captured
Circumstances have arisen, particularly in vertical groups of the disadvantaged (for example consider the enormous diversity amongst ethnic minorities in the region alone) whereby informal good practices have been adopted but not recorded, often as they are outside the approved remit of the provider and are not duly funded. Hence this restriction throws back the activity upon the providers own time, costs and goodwill to endow the client with that extra support. In effect then there are many examples of good practice across the region but an inability to capture them for the common good.
Some Projects without Hard Outcomes
Some projects appear to be ethereal in outcome, potentially, for example, arts based projects where funding is directed more at the well being of individuals rather than providing solid outcomes, some of these projects are in worthy terms aimed at those in true need as a means of rehabilitation. However a number of such projects showed a tendency to be attracting socio-economic groups who could not by any means be considered disadvantaged and the benefits of such provision seemed to by-pass those in true need as a result. The lack of hard outcomes is therefore exacerbated by opportunities being taken by socio-economic groups whom are perhaps satisfying learning desires rather than needs. As such projects of this type are considered to be cul-de-sacs and not reaching the client groups in most need and the benefits are accruing to groups who may perhaps be deemed under represented as opposed to disadvantaged.
Only one Region wide Provision serving an entire Group
The only truly region wide provision within the South East apart from the National programmes which have a restricted impact because of their vertical remit be it age or
disability type would appear to be the Jobcentre Plus funded programme for disabled people.
Localised Programmes
Much of the smaller provision is based on disadvantaged wards and the excellent communication remit of these small projects are well founded in reaching the most difficult groups. The tight and defined borders of such projects can however have the effect of eliminating peripheral disadvantaged individuals on a post code lottery.
Lack of Joined-Up Thinking
Many of the funding bodies and the providers have failed to communicate in ways that can produce effective results. Funding bodies are driven by numbers and the contractual complexity of funding and outcome derived results has, in some instances, had a reverse impact from that intended. Projects tend to be piloted and in many instances even when highly successful the lessons are not learned and implemented to push towards the creation of a mainstream long-term sustainable programme. This lack of joined-up thinking and varied expectation has had a damaging effect on the cohesion of projects and the ability of different providers to work together across different funding streams.
Accessing the Hard to Reach
Without doubt some schemes aimed at whole groups find that the most able and capable rise to the surface and emerge ahead of those with a disadvantage. There is strong and incontrovertible evidence that access to disadvantaged groups is inhibited by the very nature of the individuals from those groups and the inability of providers to reach out, understand and communicate meaningfully in an appropriate way that will encourage and support people with low self esteem. This is perhaps one of the most central themes that occur again and again. If providers are to meaningfully penetrate and support disadvantaged groups practical and workable solutions must be found. This is also an area where the marriage of social enterprise may be considered as a stepping stone or bridge to true independence for disadvantaged groups.
The Barrier of Benefit Dependency
The barrier of benefit dependency is seen as a considerable hurdle to many of the target groups who have a fear of venturing into the unknown as they perceive officialdom in the guise of the DWP or Jobcentre Plus as threatening their rights and inhibiting their lives for statistical gain to the benefit of the overall economic image of the UK. The complexity and in some instances confusion and disarray within the benefit system itself has only served to highlight this fear amongst disadvantaged groups. Clearly this signals a need for change as many of us have long been aware of, but the enormity of change could itself throw the system into further chaos without being thoroughly thought through.
Funding
Finally funding of individuals to ease change or of providers to facilitate change is clearly a problem and will no doubt remain so. Costs are measured against short-
term gain rather than the overall savings of benefit claims and costs to the economy through the correct level of expenditure, in the first instance. It is not just the cost of provision, it is the linking of the funding streams to provider cash-flow and the back-end results funding that has driven many providers to be results led in “short term gain” output rather than creating a sustainable and viable long term opportunity for the client, thus in a growing number of instances inappropriate individuals are thrust into unsustainable businesses.
