Underfunded and underestimated: Grassroots and community groups are the missing link to understanding poverty in the UK
Governments get replaced, political objectives change, and funding chases the next big issue. What remains are the same problems, and in the case of poverty in the UK, a hardship continues to worsen. It’s been 20 years and six prime ministers since poverty last saw a lasting decline.
While the tides of policy fluctuate, grassroots and community groups within the Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) sector remain firmly rooted, staying focused on the real issues that affect people and filling in the gaps left by policies shaped by misconceptions about poverty and those who endure it.
However, the CSJ report ‘Underfunded and Overlooked’ uncovered that government investment in charities with an income below £1 million fell by £413 million from 2013 to 2020, with half of small charities receiving no public sector income at all.
Despite their advantage to build trust in communities, advocate for people’s needs, address local issues and boost involvement, they remain a largely untapped resource. As a result, the funding and policy landscape has been shaped by top-down assumptions rather than lived experiences.
A shift is needed. One where commissioners and funders champion community-led initiatives through sustained investment, enabling people in hardship to shape the decisions and services that directly affect their lives.
Value of Voice
Incorporating lived experience is central to grassroots movements and essential for shaping effective policies and services. Grace Sodzi-Smith, who supports ten grassroots initiatives for the Social Change Agency, says these groups “hold greater insight to develop better solutions than any market research team. No survey or body of research can imitate real lived experiences.”
They have greater insights because they are composed of, or work extremely closely with, people who have experienced hardship themselves. The grassroots network APLE Collective, for example, told Quids in! that it’s more than just highlighting problems—it’s about “harnessing skills, knowledge, and creativity within those who have lived experiences of poverty to create real solutions. We are not just people living in poverty; we are lived experience activists, artists, nurses, practitioners, mums, dads, sons, and daughters. Our voices are just as important as anyone else’s.”
The Collective warns against “tick-box” engagement, instead opting for a peer-led model with “real-world” outcomes. Take their Chair of Trustees, Brian Scott, who draws on his own experiences of hardship and disability to advocate for others in similar situations: “Through APLE, my voice and others like mine have been heard at the highest level, both in government and in local authority areas.”
Trickle-down assumptions
Bringing lived experience to the highest levels of decision-making is crucial, as shown by Professor Ruth Patrick’s critique of the Conservative government’s “test and learn” approach to Universal Credit. She argues that had policymakers understood certain needs of claimants, such as regular cash support, they would have better foreseen the implications of leaving people without support for five weeks.
“What was missing from this approach,” she writes, “and what Labour can and must do differently is to actually listen to claimants; to take on board their own needs, preferences and experiences; and to better understand the fabric of their everyday lives.”
It’s not just the Conservative government that makes these assumptions; even those in the third sector can fall into the same trap. David Jenkins, Social Prescribing Project Manager at Bath & Northeast Somerset 3rd Sector Group (3SG), told Quids In!: “We try to fix people’s problems by giving solutions or services, rather than listening to what communities want and need.” Jenkins believes adopting a person-centred approach is crucial to countering the “arrogance” that professionals always know best.
‘Hard’ Outcomes
Top-down decisions shape the outcomes expected from support services, often placing greater emphasis on easily measurable results while neglecting more complex, individualised needs.
The 2022 ‘Systems change for people experiencing multiple disadvantage’ summarises two years of research conducted with Fulfilling Lives Lambeth, Southwark, and Lewisham, exploring new ways to support people experiencing multiple disadvantages. Research participants highlighted the need for support services and professionals to recognise and adapt to the unpredictable, non-linear nature of people’s recovery journeys. However, many services impose rigid, one-size-fits-all pathways that fail to acknowledge the reality of relapse.
The report notes that “services often assume that people should have ‘recovered’ after a particular period of receiving support,” and when additional help is needed, it is often unavailable. Had there been a better understanding, as participants suggested, that recovery is rarely a straight path, these assumptions would likely have been avoided.
These challenges are compounded by the broader system in which commissioners often prioritise measurable “hard” outcomes like employment and housing, often neglecting essential “soft” outcomes such as confidence and relationship-building, which can be just as significant to the individual. Conditional support structures complicate access further, sometimes penalising individuals for not meeting predefined targets.
Since funding decisions are often driven by these hard outcomes, which fail to account for lived experience, smaller organisations struggle to compete. Larger, more established charities and organisations, better equipped to meet these predefined targets, have a clear advantage.
Who holds the pot?
A poll from the CSJ report ‘Underfunded and Overlooked’ revealed 76% of UK adults agree that small, local charities understand communities better than organisations such as governments or larger, national charities. And yet, funding does not reflect public opinion, with 85% of all charitable income in England and Wales allocated to only 4 per cent of registered charities.
Regardless of their track record, larger charities, typically functioning nationally, are given funding priority. Smaller charities and initiatives don’t have the infrastructure – staff, networks, time, campaign or fundraising expertise – to compete with larger charities.
The CSJ report uncovered that government investment in charities with an income below £1 million fell by £413 million from 2013 to 2020, with half of small charities receiving no public sector income at all. It is no wonder that in the past 10 years, 97% of charity closures were small and medium sized charities.
Anchor organisations, such as social landlords and grant-making foundations, play a crucial role in providing much needed support to smaller charities, organisations and initiatives. However, the Fulfilling Lives report notes how commissioning systems can work against them: “Commissioners are often incentivised to give contracts to larger organisations that can achieve economies of scale, take on greater financial risks, demonstrate ‘value for money’, use ‘tested’ approaches, and have the systems required to ensure quality and monitor outcomes.”
Community-led organisations are left with short-term funding, limiting their scope of impact and contributing to inconsistent and unconnected support. During the Social Change Agency’s Risky Business panel, community economist Nonhlanhla Makuyana emphasised that “giving a little bit doesn’t create the sustainability needed to build strong movements that take us to the future we want to get to. To truly support grassroots initiatives, they must receive sufficient funding—not just to survive, but to thrive.”
Stronger roots
Greater, more targeted, and sustained investment in community-led initiatives are needed to create valuable outcomes around poverty according to research from Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) and Sheffield Hallam University. However, with commissioners and funders facing financial constraints and a reluctance to take risks, collaboration becomes crucial to ensure resources are used efficiently and sustainably.
Luke Maynard from The National Lottery Community Fund points out that while grassroots organisations are “nimble and quick”, they need larger organisations for support in areas like safeguarding and digital capabilities. At the same time, local authorities require grassroots groups and larger charities for local knowledge and volunteer networks.
Research from LSE Housing and Communities further emphasises the value of this mutually beneficial relationship, showing how anchor organisations like housing associations can provide essential resources—such as venues and expertise—while gaining insight from the deep local knowledge of community-based VCSEs.
Those at the top—funders, commissioners, service leaders, and decision-makers—must acknowledge that traditional, state-led approaches have failed to close the poverty gap. However, “Integrated local systems that can genuinely share power and support agency just might,” concludes Jessica Studdert in her JRF article Breaking the Cycle of Hardship.
By investing in sustainable funding, fostering partnerships, and valuing community expertise, we can build a more resilient and responsive support system that reflects the needs of those living in poverty. What’s needed now is lasting, bottom-up change, not just temporary fixes.
Image: Rawpixel.com / Shutterstock