The Foundling Museum, celebrates what may have been the country’s first children’s charity. In equal measures it is inspiring in its intention and horrifying in its history.
Created around the mid-1700s, the charity is a great example of the wealthy with the means taking care of those most marginalised in society. The process was part philanthropy and part entertainment, as the wealthy of the day, with time on their hands, hand-picked the children they wanted to support.
The museum is full of positive stories where children have fared well whilst also, for the more sensitive amongst us, squeezed in between each wooden panel is the heaviness of what might have happened to the children without the glowing outcomes.
Today, we focus on being as close in situation to our service users as possible. At Hopscotch Women’s Centre we are over 80% by and for – and it’s hard. With the desperation of trying to recruit those with lived experience, meet outcomes for funders, and attempt to meet core costs, it can be easy to take our eye off the ball of being representative of those we support.
The metaphor of a ball works when we support those most marginalised in society – we pass the ball back and forth, assuring vulnerable women and children that we are here, we can catch even the hardest throw, we aren’t going anywhere, and we will keep this ball for as long as those more vulnerable than us need us to, before passing it back.
We rarely would pass a ball to someone who we cannot see as an individual. This is the way that government and other statutory bodies may see individuals in need, as a homogenous whole. It’s too time consuming to break down groups into different humans. Those accessing charitable services often first need to have confirmation that they are seen as individuals, that they are acknowledged and not judged – because they often come having borne the effects of being “easy to ignore” by the very systems they hoped would be their safety net.
The time taken to have a gentle approach, be culturally appropriate, and build rapport, is such an important investment in time, which many charity team members make without even thinking about it. When recruiting, leaders look for team members who demonstrate an ability to be truly present for those who should benefit from our services, because we know this investment in time sends messages of reassurance and hope, sometimes for the first time in the lives of beneficiaries.
Team members with this deep understanding of person-centred working are also driven by an understanding of systemic discrimination. At Hopscotch we have lived experience of the barriers faced by our service users. Our team works closely with statutory and other bodies, and others, to shine a spotlight on policies and processes which harm those we serve – even though they are designed with the intention to do the opposite. I see team members vent their frustrations appropriately, and then quietly continue to tailor all front-line support to be accessible and be at the pace set needed by individual the service user. I wish we spoke more about this essential dichotomy between the two very different approaches towards those who are part of the system and those who are suffering because of the system. And how it isn’t only charity leaders who focus on systems change, but the front-line workers too.
When Hopscotch Women’s Centre was the Mayor of Camden’s charity of the year, the results of the fundraising went into being able to work at this more trauma informed pace. This was needed because the cost-of-living crisis brought in a large influx of complex cases (on top of those caused by successive lockdowns). As an example, a case may essentially be about VAWG (Violence Against Women and Girls), with housing and immigration uncertainty, and now with the addition of poverty together with mental health issues.
Working with this complexity doesn’t fit into funder timelines or outcomes. This leaves charities to focus hard on building unrestricted income to be able to work at a pace that matches the vulnerable person. Or we don’t manage and forego being trauma informed, rebuilding confidence and motivation and being sure we can support individuals to start visualising a life after the crisis. Unfortunately, not all charities get to be the Mayor’s Charity of the Year and have an influx of cash to put towards this crisis for one year.
And what happens after that one year?
What happens when a charity is working super hard at just staying afloat – with little flexibility to meet needs on the ground? It’s heartbreaking when one of us goes under, and it ends up putting even more pressure on the rest of us to pick up the slack. We have no choice, as that’s what the sector does. We are the fourth emergency service.
The complexity of trauma, whilst putting pressure on charities, is beautiful in a way, because it means that no case is like another. We see that no individual’s resilience is replicated in anyone else, and the sector has had to become the expert in this. Statutory bodies now have huge constraints and therefore resistance to work in a way that takes more resource.
I notice that when the sector attracts workers with law degrees, these team members are powerful in defending human rights – and will, for example, remind a housing officer, social worker, or GP surgery what their role and remit is with details of their duty towards the vulnerable.
Every difficult act of advocacy performed helps embed self-worth in those we support – unless there are mental health issues, and then the need for culturally appropriate support escalates. As self-worth builds, so does the desire to take back agency that may have been taken away over so many years. We cannot predict the timeline from initial assessment to those accessing the service feeling ready to move on – making the writing of outcomes in many funding applications a guessing game.
But it’s an incredible feeling when beneficiaries become friends of the organisation and even feel they want to give back in some way. Many charities don’t speak about this transition, and I think it may be because many of us feel protective of those who have been recently vulnerable, considering we are inundated by requests for access to current and ex-service users for the sake of consultation.
We say “nothing about us without us” in relation to those we support. Equally, we know the pitfalls of consultation with neither adequate accessibility or support and where there is no reward or recognition built in. The work that charities like Hopscotch Women’s Centre do to educate stakeholders and funders around appropriate consultation isn’t funded. Yet it is essential learning, so that those we have worked with who have experienced exploitation aren’t put into that same position again – in however minor a way – in the guise of consultation.
Recently, when Hopscotch created a Positive Masculinity Programme for boys as a preventative for VAWG, the team consulted with men with a history of lived experience of violence in the home. These were accomplished, professional men who asked if they could help. They had been in therapy and really wanted to engage in this work, which meant a lot to them… but the consultation had to be paused because the topic triggered PTSD, despite their own therapy and the therapeutic support we had in place. It was such a learning moment for us about how much time, patience, false starts, etc. that charities experience when attempting to include people with lived experience in our innovative programmes.
I want to issue a call to action – for the government to acknowledge the huge responsibility carried by the beyond-profit sector, and to embed this into all policies that affect vulnerable people:
- The sector, generally, is skilled in reaching those missed by statutory bodies – they are experts in working with complex cases and trauma, often with resources stretched beyond restricted funding
- The statutory sector is stretched too – it relies on the Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS) to sensitively and appropriately handle complex cases because it does not always have resources or skills to provide the support laid out in its own mission
- We need greater trust and flexibility in relationships with the government and funders, with an acknowledgement that one-size-fits-all solutions are not fit for purpose compared to appropriate, tailored support
- Charities, government, agencies, and funders can learn from each other – and particularly from areas like Camden, with its 2000 charities and initiatives, where those in need can locally access high quality support that is centred around them, their barriers, and needs.