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.

Nice one beginnings the power of twitter!

Maybe Caitlin could do another article?

I am not on twitter but I realise how many people are, so that sounds great.

I would hope that Naomi House becomes a symbol of what these cuts are really going to mean.

and

I must confess that owing to my technical numptiness, doing a link on twitter failed me and therefore another tweeted on my behalf so I can't take all the credit . Tweeting it at Caitlin Moran was part of my request however.

It's also worth remembering that they started the place after watching drug-addicted women in the sex industry lose baby after baby to adoption. This isn't even only about the 20 obvious people helped - it's about the babies who will now not be born to a drug addicted mother and lose her, before entering the care system (adoptions don't tend to happen at newborn age - and babies are not blank slates).

Quite apart from the long term costs argument, this is the only such unit open to women who work in the sex industry and are drug addicted. Those are quite specific needs in a pregnant woman, especially as the residential safe house aspect keeps her away from the exploitative man who is, according to the quotes in the Telegraph, likely to be pimping her out and supplying her.

I don't think I understand how 10 women in a 4 bed unit who needed to be there a fair length of time for optimal outcome is not cost effective. Prison stints alone would cost more - even without the social services and medical costs of repeated drug-addicted babies, or the cost of criminal justice system mechanisms. Monetarily as well as in terms of human suffering this is a taxpayer win.

Oh fantastic, great for whoever got Caitlin Moran to do this.

I support this model of provision But all sectors [voluntary and public] are being squeezed to demonstrate robust and cost effective outcomes. Now I don't know the finical or commissioning specifics of this particular project. But yes the cuts are deep and harsh

Is another provider able to replicate at lower cost?
23 month stay is a significant ask from any health trust in today climate. Generally trusts are looking for more concrete and demonstrable outcomes in a shorter time frame

Yeah, I appreciate it's universal and a slow process. But... one of those mothers is now getting her 10 year old back out of the care system, as well as raising her now-toddler herself. She's moved to a new area closer to her mum, and away from drug haunts. She has 2 primary aged kids still in the care system, too, and whether or not she gets them back to live with her I can only imagine that her contact and thus their sense of identity has been hugely benefitted. And that's just 1 of these 10 women - 6 people helped immeasurably.

I don't know. I know a lot of DV support/provision, rape crisis centres, disabled people's services, children's services... I know the list is endless. But this isn't just morally right, it's surely got to be more cost-effective than the alternative. And there doesn't seem to be one, in all honesty; not one that recognises maternity may be the incentive these women need to sort themselves out (and it provides ongoing support and contact with their children for those women who didn't manage to do so, as well, so it's not as though it's all or nothing on the "success" criteria, either). It does feel a bit like sex workers on heroin aren't a fluffy enough subject for most individual fund-raising to help.

Bet you the Donkey Sanctuary and Cats Protection League aren't in any danger of closing any time soon, given they're infinitely more widely supported than women's refuges are. Which never fails to shock me.

"Is another provider able to replicate at lower cost?"

If they could then it wouldn't be such a kicker that this one is closing, but somehow I can't see a new unit being opened in this economic climate. And this is the only one for this particulat sector.

Yes ironically cat league have millions donated
Adult social care limps along,struggling for cash

You know the thing that really baffles me about most animal shelters? They feed obligate carnivores (such as cats) on exceedingly low welfare meat. So Lord knows how many animals live horrible lives before dying nasty deaths, all in the name of some other animal's welfare. It's crazy; donate money to animals and thus indirectly support factory meat farming, but totally ignore human suffering. And add massively to the burden of the state in so doing - in this case the cycle of deprivation is so apparent if no effective intervention occurs.

I suppose that's what happens when funding boils down to a popularity contest. The literally fluffy win out. Yet Cameron thinks this is the way support for the needy should be provided?

Like or not govt and health trusts need to be prudent and accountable with budgets. If the project cannot demonstrably show good clinical and pathway outcome it will struggle

The cuts,the recession is deep and harsh

you mention disabled peoples services, do you know how badly they are being cut, how many families will be ripped apart?
where will the money come from to fund this project?

Batskill, unfortunately I do. I'm sure you've seen this: it was linked to me by a friend who works for a disability charity in serious threat of closing altogether. But Naomi House shocked me because it is such an obvious way to break a cycle through generations, and because the children to benefit are going to be set adrift without any real alternative provision for their mothers. It's reducing their life chances so horrendously before they're even born.

Of course all work for vulnerable people is essential. I have to say, I don't think turning on other vulnerable groups and resenting attention or pleas for help for them is the right target for (completely justified) anger. Personally, I'd like a Robin Hood tax on the City. That should fund quite a few Naomi Houses. And I don't think the Lottery should be funding the Olympics at all.

"Like or not govt and health trusts need to be prudent and accountable with budgets. If the project cannot demonstrably show good clinical and pathway outcome it will struggle"

I accept that, but do we actually have any evidence that Naomi House has failed on those fronts? All I've seen are posters suggesting the possibility. And sadly I don't think the only groups suffering are those who can't show good outcomes/value for money. If only.

but if this place is saved, funds will be taken from another group.
as I said earlier on the thread(have name changed) you say that you know other vulnerable groups are being hit by closures, ones that are just as important as this one,

That's a fallacy.

But to turn that around, why is this group less important than another? Why should they not be funded accordingly, and people not draw attention to it? What do you want, Batskill? Important work in some sectors to be dropped and no protest made, in order to ensure that others aren't adversely affected? Would you suggest the sectors you support stand down accordingly - should people not try to raise awareness there, in case someone else's vulnerable group loses out? Who determines who stands down and accepts closure/removal of funding? This is wrong. It's all wrong to be looking jealously at other groups and being all, "well, who should lose out instead?" Why should this group lose out, exactly? Why not look at vanity projects like the Olympics, or fundraising for a new royal yacht, or the Jubilee, or the sodding royal wedding policing costs, or MPs still ludicrously generous and inadequately overseen expenses? Why look straight at a project such as this and basically say you don't want a fuss made so no other project is less well supported as a result - sorry, but that sounds like arguing over places on the lifeboat to me.

Sex workers on heroin are not the easiest people to fundraise for, and I suspect are quite soft targets for fund-cutting. There aren't very many people in a position to speak out for them and they don't attract much sympathy in general. Fair enough to question the validity if it's not value for money. But nobody has done more than suggest that, without supporting evidence, at this stage. And if the subtext of your posts is, well, they chose to take drugs... (not saying it is what you mean, BTW, but it's not an uncommon reaction) even leaving aside that it's never that simple, the babies didn't and don't. Don't they count too? Especially as drug addiction in pregnancy can cause disability in the child, and without help these women apparently tend to fall pregnant repeatedly due to chaotic lives.

Another poster made an extremely good point: why are the NSPCC campaigning with most of their money to raise yet more money, instead of funding projects such as this, or Childline, or helping children on the ground? If money is so finite, why isn't it being better targeted?

Batskull, that's defeatism. If all good causes do is squabble between themselves about who is most deserving, everyone will lose out. A child whose mother is an addict and a sex worker needs our help. A disabled adult who is being left without care needs our help. We are the fourth fucking largest economy in the world, we can actually do both. The government found the money to fight a war in Libya when they felt like it - whatever you think of the rights and wrongs of it, clearly there ARE billions of pounds to spend on things the government thinks are important. IMO, support for vulnerable people is a priority for any civilised society - and you can't get much more vulnerable than a baby born to a drug-addicted sex worker.

That's quite apart from the economic case. Clearly it is far more efficient to support a mother and baby so they can stay together - if at all possible - than to have a woman whose children are repeatedly put into care.

oh I agree, I think we shouldn't be wasting money on things like the Olympics and agree that projects like this are needed, I am just asking where the funding will come from. that is all. the op has not answered that.
it is not jealousy(odd thing to say) I just don't think the government will suddenly up the budget for theses things, the money will come from the existing pot.

I didn't mean jealousy literally, bats, "eyes jealously" is just a turn of phrase.

And I'm afraid I think I have answered your question: I believe your question mistaken and ill concieved. These cuts are ideological and not fiscally motivated and the money would be there, were there the will. You're talking as though there is an exact pot of cash, and I don't think there is. I also think it's pretty appalling to be challenging whether people should protest one cut by asking who else should lose out. It is absolutely a case of squabbling over the lifeboats, I'm afraid, and the old divide and rule springs to mind.

I'm also confused as to why you're on the one hand saying you agree re the Olympics etc and on the other saying I've not answered your question on where the funding should come from. I gave numerous examples and Edam has also pointed out that we are a huge economy, supporting major military action. Frankly the refurbishing of the new apartments for William and Kate in Kensington has been costed in the millions and will be taxpayer funded in terms of structural work (riddled with asbestos, needs new plumbing... though none of this was deemed necessary when it was intended for use by English Heritage) and given they're millionaires, I would suggest they might want to fund that themselves, too. There are a lot of places cuts could be made that would not affect vulnerable sectors at all, and I am still very that your immediate response to this is to ask who else loses out instead.

If money is tight and needs rationing then it should go to the neediest and most vulnerable, not create an internal market between those most needy and vulnerable as to who gets thrown under the bus.

Wow busy day on this thread. To recap (sorry it's messy!):

1. The following people have said they will donate, (apologies if I've missed anyone) and this can be done here: uk.virginmoneygiving.com/fundraiser-web/donate/makeDonationForCharityDisplay.action?charityId=1000994&frequencyType=S

perfectstorm
Bossybritches22
lesley33
Flatbread
Pickgo
Sarahplane
TerraNotSoFirma
MidnightWorry
Ozziegirly
InWIthTheITCrowd
tasmaniandevilchaser
trixymalixy
CelticPromise
crazynanna
ssd
TheJoyfulPuddleJumper
luckywinner
TheBigmouthBugle
rogersmellyonthetelly
Charlotteperkins
8rubberduckies
MsF1t
DreamingofSummer
beginnings
TheProvincialLady
DOG
Kleptronic

2. For further information on Naomi House or One25 (the charity which runs it) visit the website, one25.org.uk/news/index.php?id=62 where there are direct contact details for named people about Naomi House

3. Bossybritches22 has emailed the named people for more information

4. MN has 'stickied' it (ta) but cannot do a campaign, we are welcome to do one

5. People such as Caitlin Moran have tweeted about it (I have no knowledge of who that is but I'm sure it's great)

6. perfectstorm has been tirelessly putting information on this thread all day, and reproduced this, which I think says it all really:
   [...] the only one [residential centre] 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.? "

Someone (sorry, I've lost you in the melee) posted a link to a woman who has worked towards positive outcomes with the help of Naomi House:
m.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/sep/03/mum-heroin-daughter-treatment-centre?cat=lifeandstyle&type=article

tasmaniandevilchaser has written to her MP, and posts this link so we all can:
www.writetothem.com/

Birdsgottafly and imogengladheart amongst others note:
Campaigns for donantions are wonderful. However i think that would would help is if the manager could give an estimated figure of how much per week it costs for each mother to stay there with their babies.
It IS ideological, not financial.

I think this is a good point, and hopefully Bossybritches22 can report back on that?
It would be good if someone could volunteer to find out how much the alternative - court, contacts, assessments, SWs, foster care etc. - cost.

soandsomummy posted this link to one25's accounts, and makes a fine point about undertanding the whole financial picture (Bristol City COuncil's cut being 26k only, which I expect wouldn't pay the 9 specialist staff wages for a week never mind anything else).
www.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends91%5C0001062391_ac_20110430_e_c.pdf

LineRunner provided this information on Bristol MPs and City Councillors:

Members of Parliament (MPs)
The City of Bristol is covered by the following constituencies:

Bristol East
Kerry McCarthy (Labour)

326a Church Road,
St George,
Bristol
BS5 8AJ

Tel: 0117 939 9901
Fax: 0117 939 9902

House of Commons
Tel: 020 7219 3000
Email: [email protected]

Bristol North West
Charlotte Leslie (Conservative)

184 Henleaze Road
Henleaze
Bristol
BS9 4NE

Tel/Fax: 0117 962 9427

House of Commons
Tel: 0207 2197026
Email: [email protected]

Bristol South
Rt Hon Dawn Primarolo (Labour)

PO Box 1002
Bristol
BS99 1WH

Tel: 0117 909 0063 (10am to 1pm)
Email: [email protected]

Bristol West
Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat)

PO Box 2500
Bristol
BS6 9AH

Tel: 0117 942 3494
Fax: 0117 942 6925

House of Commons
Tel: 020 7219 8416
Email: [email protected]

Bristol City Councillors

Leader - [email protected]

Cabinet Member for Children and Young People - [email protected]

Cabinet Member for Care and Health - [email protected]

Thankyou Kleptronic will donate in the morning when I get paid x