This is the saddest "cuts" story I've read to date.

[perfectstorm]

Those poor girls, and their poor babies. And in the general scheme of things the money is peanuts.

I know things are tough, but we're the 4th largest economy in the world (and I can't see how privatising the NHS is going to save money long-term, either - hardly like the US model is any kind of advert for cost-effectiveness). I just can't believe we're abandoning the most vulnerable in society as we are.

Marking my place. I work a few doors up from One25 for another charity and have had contact with them, sharing mutual clients, such a great organisation. There are so many places like this on the verge of collapse that when I stop and think about it I feel quite desperate, let alone worrying about my own job. I will also donate.

For further information on Naomi House contact Josie Hill at [email protected] or Gill Nowland at [email protected].

Both can be contacted at 0117 909 8832.

Let's bombard them with messges of support, they need to know we're behind them

There is a lot of very understandable emotion on this thread and I feel the same about the outcomes as you do. However, before going into a campaign you need to understand the finances behind the decision.

However, has anyone looked to see where this charity were getting their money from. if not take a look You will find that the vast majority of their income in the year to April 2011 was made up from

a) voluntary donations - £90,736
b) grants - £490,745.

Of those grants only the £26k which came from Bristol City council would have been decided at a political level. The rest comes from various grant making bodies (£6000 came from the Guardian)

The difficulty many of the grant making bodies have is that as cuts bite all over the place, more and more organization are applying to the same pots of money. Grant making bodies are having to cut grants, make stronger justifications in regards to value for money and in some cases not make grants at all. sadly if it wasn't Naomi house it would be another orgaisation that is the subject of this thread.

Its very sad but understanding the wider picture is important. There will have been many organisations involved in this cut not just the government. Before going further you need to find out what their actual position is as it may not be as bad as they suggest and it may in fact be worse.

Good point soandsosmumy: however, I think that if these grant making bodies are having to make cuts, the government should take a look at whether there is a case for increased funding from them directly. Even on a purely financial basis, it is clear there is an excellent case for that here. As folk have pointed out, children going into care and women committing crime and then potentially doing long stretches in jail will cost us far more both financially and in less 'measurable' ways.

I don't have very much money at all (we are eking out a living on one wage at the moment) but even I will have a look down the back of the sofa and give what I can for these women.

happy to chip in if someone sets it up

The whole funding process is bonkers. It's stability that is needed, not year-on-year uncertainty. And charities end up having to spend valuable money on chasing grants.

Oh, and has anyone ever seen the rigmarole even a small organisation has to go through to get some money out of Comic Relief?

I'd rather give the money straight to the front line in future, eg places like Naomi House.

I think the idea is a very good one, but assoandsosays, it does not get government funding and relied on grants, and grant making bodies have lots of charities asking for money so they have to make a decision regarding which one makes mor euse of the money. This charity according to ther article ha sonly had a fifty percent success rate, which in the past three years amounted to only nine women. Whilst thta is fantastic for those nine women, the grant making bodies may have decided this was not a high enough success rate as other projects and have opted to give money to other projects. Since this chairty has only been running since 2009 it might not be accurate to say it is not getting funding simply because of the cuts, it could be that after three years it has not been as successful as it originally thought it would be and so its funding has dried up.

Linerunner is exactly right. I also prefer to give to front line organisations as I too have seen the ridiculous amount of time and money that these organizations have to spend chasing funds. This charity alone spent over £35000 on generating funds in one year. As a percentage of their total received funds that's around 6% of everything they finally received

The whole process of fundraising is incredibly complicated and time consuming. It really does use up the time, money and resources of the funded organisations, jumping through all the hoops that applying for grants requires.

I agree that for Naomi House to close would be a very short term saving, and would cost way way more when the girls end up back on drugs, in prison, and with their children in care.
And when children go into care, the whole sorry cycle begins again.
I don't understand how the government can go on about "broken Britain" and then go out of their way to break it further.

MSf1t - a lot of the organisations will have huge trust funds behind them and not be funded by the government at all. The trusts may well have suffered because of the wider economic situation - eg stock markets. Others such as the national lottery have had big pressures on them partly because of the Olympics so have had less money for this sort of thing. Others such as Comic Relief, Children in Need for example rely on huge public campaigns. Its not as simple as government funding - if only it were

I know I sound detached but I'm just trying to clarify that the situation is a lot more complicated than it first appears and an emotional response while understandable is not necessarily the best response.

At no point in their press releases have the organisation said were the funding cuts have come from but its clear from their accounts it could be from any number of sources (even the guardian [grin[ )

The original article talks of loss of government grants and strugling since May 2010, and how a new funding model got bolloxed because of issues with the council over housing benefit.

The prevetative economic still work even if few women are helped to turn things around, I think.

sorry I can't spell today

'How horrendous. And if the article wasn't written, we wouldn't even know about it - again, those who most desperately need a voice are those who are the most invisible.'

These cuts are happening all over and started with disabled people and respite care/day centres. Where was the outrage then? Now its probably too late for so many projects

I take your point, Kal, but to be fair there is a lot of outrage and frothing about lots of cuts and service reductions across MN.

Do you mean where is the reportage in the media? I agree with that. It's as though the media didn't actually get it, that things would actually close and stop happening.

This is the same process universities research projects have to go through. It can take weeks to fill out the forms for grant proposals and if th eproject has been going for three years it will certainly have to show a good success rate. Chances are a university research project would not get funding if after three years it was only fifty percent successfully and then only for a small number of people.

It sounds like the low success rate and low number of women it actually cured was more of a factor as they said they had tried to increase the turn around time from almost two years to several months in order to get patient numbers up,

Sick to the stomach :(

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that 10 out of 18 women living independently with their babies after overcoming serious drug addiction is a high success rate. Addiction is notoriously tough to treat. Whether the numbers is a problem, I don't know. I do know that this is only 1 of 2 mother and baby units for addicts in the country (it says so in the Guardian article) so you cannot claim others are more successful, because they simply don't exist.

Boo hiss at those nasty millionaire tories

Oh wait though ..... Isn't bandwagon ed slightly well orf, not to mention ol gordy who is doing very nicely thank you after running away from his mess

Sorry, one of 4. And the only one that specifically works with former sex industry workers, which is never going to be an easy sell, frankly. And government figures show that treatment for addicts is usually only 30% effective, so a higher-than-50% success rate is in fact unusually high.

From the http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/8989947/And-baby-comes-too-rehab-for-mothers-in-crisis.html Telegraph last month:

"Naomi House, which opened three years ago, is one of only four addiction centres in England and Wales to cater for mothers and babies, and the only one specifically for women who?ve escaped sex work. For all of these women, it?s the last stop before their children are taken from their care; it represents their only chance of keeping their child.

Overseen by a 24-hour specialist team of nine, residents undergo a careful detox using methadone or Subutex ? another heroin substitute ? and breastfeed so that babies exposed to drugs in utero can withdraw at the same time as their mothers. (Withdrawal symptoms, which seem to affect some babies but not others, include irritability, tremors, a high-pitched cry and poor sleep.) There?s also counselling, parenting workshops, cooking classes, money management, shiatsu massage and art therapy.

The house was started by the Bristol-based charity One25, which provides outreach services to street sex workers. Building relationships over time, staff had watched women become pregnant and lose their babies to the care system, only to become pregnant again. There was nothing to help them break out of the cycle.

'It seems like the system is set for them to fail,? says Gill Nowland, the charity?s director. 'As soon as they become pregnant they need so much support: help separating from violent, controlling boyfriends who are often living off them; addiction workers; safe housing.

'But social workers don?t get involved until there?s a child to protect ? by which time it?s too late. [These women?s] lives are too chaotic and their babies are put into the care system. We had a vision of setting up a home where women could have treatment while also learning to be mums.? "

That is a high succes rate. It was during the Thatcher years that the Private Provider, whether business or charity was encouraged to run services, but when the funding wasn't in place there was no alternative put in place.

This has been for a long time has been asked to be reconsidered across services for all service user catagories.

The cost to the tax payer is going to escalate on the closer of this unit, the government should be funding this.

but if the government fund it, they will just take money from another vulnerable group. then what?

Income Spending

30 Apr 2011 £698,442 £695,783
30 Apr 2010 £606,617 £584,433
30 Apr 2009 £320,739 £418,818
30 Apr 2008 £364,847 £264,992
30 Apr 2007 £272,828 £222,706

Looking at these figures taken from Charity commission website, I have to say that the argument about the cut in 2010 is just not stacking up for me. The big question is what grants were awarded for 2011-2012 and we do not know those figures until they are filed with charity commission.

I am not saying the charity is lying but on the limited figures available something does not stack up though a percentage of the funding increase in 2010 will be directly related to Naomi House.

No doubt the 2011-12 accounts will clarify things. It all comes down to economics in the end though which is no comfort for the drug addicted mums who could have been helped.

Very sad situation though :(

Soansso- economics for who?

"but if the government fund it, they will just take money from another vulnerable group. then what?"

MPs buy their own flat screen TVs. I appreciate it would be a struggle for them, but given their expenses per year would fund at least a couple Naomi Houses, and we ARE all in it together, I'm sure they'd cope with proper emotional support.