Tag Archives: volunteering

More of the same? Volunteering and the Giving White Paper

Posted on by

The Giving White Paper published yesterday sets out the Government’s plans to encourage and facilitative giving – a key part of achieving the Prime Minister’s goal of a Big Society. Whilst there is much to commend, there’s a significant gap around CRB checks which urgently needs to be addressed: it’s not whether you have a conviction that matters, but what kind of conviction it is. By taking a blanket approach to convictions, the Government risks cutting off many potential volunteers with directly relevant experience.  

‘Giving’ is defined as either giving time (volunteering) or giving money (traditionally described as philanthropy). The White Paper outlines volunteering projects such as the Community Organiser scheme run by Locality, and the National Citizen Service (being evaluated by OPM as part of a consortium), and details government investment in various other philanthropic projects.

‘Giving’ contains many positive ideas and the aim to increase civic action and responsibility is of course desirable. The emphasis on financial investment will be welcomed by relevant organisations in civil society, and the case studies of volunteering projects are inspiring examples of innovative practice. However, the paper lacks detail in its solutions to overcoming the individual barriers to voluntary participation. Further work will be urgently needed to flesh these ideas out as the legislation progresses.

The paper reveals the government’s intention to reduce red tape to ‘common sense levels’, particularly in relation to the CRB check. They propose two ways to speed up the process for existing volunteers: i) by allowing the CRB to be transferable between organisations and ii) reducing the vetting and barring scheme to individuals that work in close contact with vulnerable people. These are both sensible suggestions for existing volunteers.

The paper does not, however, address the barrier posed by the CRB to many of those who do not currently volunteer, particularly those with a criminal conviction or who have had periods of homelessness (and therefore cannot provide addresses for their last five years). This is a particular issue not just because these are the people who could most benefit from volunteering opportunities but also because these individuals – precisely because of their backgrounds – could offer invaluable life experience to voluntary positions (such as ex-youth offenders becoming excellent peer-mentors).

For these individuals, the CRB check needs further rationalisation, to recognise that it is not the fact of a conviction but the nature of it which is relevant when applying to volunteer with ‘at risk’ groups. As it stands, the check stops some people applying because the implication is that a criminal record will undermine an application to volunteer. And it often does, as organisations can be reluctant to take on the risk themselves.

What is needed is a personalised process to examine the conviction or issue in reference to the applied position. This process should not just rely on common sense – which is not good enough when deciding who should work with children or vulnerable people – but neither should it rely on bureaucracy.

‘Giving’ does suggest examples of voluntary schemes that work to ‘empower’ communities but it does not explore barriers to individual volunteering in any detail or breadth. This White Paper is in danger of leading to policy that supports the same people to do more volunteering, rather than encouraging new people to get started.

You can read about the issues touched above in more detail in an earlier post.

By Linda Roberts, OPM senior researcher.

Linda Roberts

Contradictions of community organising in the Big Society

Posted on by

Last week, OPM, Turning Point and Catch22 held a seminar hosted by NESTA to mark the launch of their paper, the New Neighbourhood Army: The role of community organising in the Big Society.

The event raised a number of interesting contradictions around the role, purpose, nature and potential impacts of community organisers. There was the desire for clarity around the new Big Society agenda, alongside the sense that community organising was, and is, something that has been happening for decades. The audience debated how a national, state funded, training programme for community organising could be imposed when community organising, by definition, is a grassroots, independent movement.  And there were questions of funding, accountability and independence – how can community organisers be funded and yet remain independent of these funding interests?

This blog contains just some of the questions and contradictions which were raised through the event and includes questions posed through twitter contributors (#communityorg). These included:

What is a community? When we talk of communities, are we referring to communities in a geographical sense, or communities of interest? Is the idea that everyone can be part of one community a worrying premise?
What is local? Do community organisers need to be local – but what if local people don’t have the skills to encourage, persuade and work within the wider community?
How will it work in different communities? Will community organising take off in the same way in suburbia? What about disadvantaged communities with fewer resources? If power equality is the root of the aim, what is the specific support for minorities?
Who is accountable? What will the oversight arrangements be for community organisers? How will community organisers be managed so as not to turn into vigilante groups? How do you strip away red tape but still protect the vulnerable?
How can funding lead to independent organising? How will fundraising work if not from local authorities? Who will community organisers really be accountable to if they are part funded by businesses?
How is duplication to be prevented? How will it be ensured that new community organisers do not take away precious resources from the community organisations that already exist? How can already existing organisations undertake work with new organisers if they do not bring funding with them?
How can technology support the process? How can digital technologies contribute to community organising?
How to build on existing activity? It will be important that existing organisers within the community who are already doing this work, and taking on this role are not overlooked in favour of new people. How can this be managed?
What is the role of elected members? Community organisers cannot exist outside of the already existing neighbourhood, community and democratic structures. Will there be some kind of joint training on offer for elected members to understand this new presence?
What are the logistics? What is best practice in terms of recruitment and incentives for community organisations? Is 5,000 a big enough number? Will there be a dense enough covering of community organisers or will they be too sparsely located to really achieve anything?
How will community organisers be supported? Is there a need for a support network for community organisers, akin to that which exists for WI institutes, to share learning, expertise and ideas?

Both the panel and the audience offered their own thoughts, experiences and some solutions to these questions. Turning Point offered examples from their Connected Care model and how to include communities in the decision making process and Catch22 talked of the importance of intensive support for community organisers in disadvantaged communities.

As argued in the main paper it is important to learn from existing best practice and understand the starting point of the specific community. Research needs to be done at the community level through mapping exercises to understand who are the key players and organisations already operating locally. It is essential to trial and test any new scheme to understand the different levels of impact on different sections of the community. The contradictions raised above need to be recognised, understood and contextualised for local application in practice. 

As one attendee remarked, it is important to distinguish between community organising and simply people trying to do good things within a community. The definition of community organisation and how it is to be managed are two major questions of Big Society.

By Linda Roberts, OPM senior researcher

Linda Roberts

From political theory to grass roots change: Your Big Society needs you?

Posted on by

At a recent RSA lecture, Jesse Norman MP, the man who has been brave enough to write an entire (and fairly well received) book of the Big Society agenda, gave a potted version of his publication. In response, both panel and audience members levelled the charge at Norman that his book, while persuasive, is both written by a politician, and for politicians, and as such is likely to have little sway or currency with the public at large.

The book contextualises the Big Society in a history of social and political thought traditions. This goes some way to clarifying the purpose of the agenda for those who are familiar with Hobbes’ Leviathan, and Edmund Burke’s ‘little platoons.’ But it will do little for the average citizen who is more concerned about the quality of life for themselves and their families, than about tracing the development of Conservative social theory.

How will the talk turn into action?

The lecture made me reflect some more on exactly how the Big Society will make the transition between political theory and grass roots change. For a number of reasons, it won’t be the coalition government’s Big Society brand that takes roots within communities and inspires change where it’s needed. Firstly, the Big Society is ensconced in the middle of the debate between the political left and right, and as such will remain inherently unappealing to those with certain political persuasions. But more fundamentally than that, the Big Society vision doesn’t take account of the complex motivators and drivers that make people want to, and crucially feel able to, get involved.

So what are the motivating factors and the psychological drivers that are going to be used to create a new community dynamic? It might be tempting to emphasise the budget cuts, as a backdrop of urgency to motivate new players to come forward and get involved in community provision. But for those who are at pains to stress that the agenda is not a fig leaf for cuts,  this is likely to be a short sighted move, and could limit the longevity of any success. If community involvement is tied to the short term, short-fall in public finance, then what scope is there for the agenda’s aim of a permanent shift in the social contract between state and citizen?

Longer-term motivators for community involvement

So instead we have to identify and tap into longer-term motivators for community involvement. Important intelligence on these motivating factors has been provided by the NCVO’s Pathways through Participation, which is exploring how and why people get involved and stay involved in different forms of participation over the course of their lives. Is personal interest in a cause or issue a pre-requisite for participation? And what types of reward are sufficient to ensure sustained participation? The project’s briefing paper on motivations for participation identifies altruism, recognition and personal development as some of the key drivers for individuals to take up and continue in a participatory role, and for the full results of their case study research, we’ll have to wait until next year.

But national research can’t give us the full picture. It’ll be necessary to leverage the particular concerns, and local allegiances of a community if we are to shape meaningful opportunities for participation. As part of OPM’s Big Society ‘hothouse’ programme, supporting five local authorities to develop new initiatives for community involvement, we will be looking at the use of “community communicators”. These are key individuals who can spread information amongst their social networks about the value of and the entry points to community involvement and participation. 

My suspicion is that we still have a lot to learn from new initiatives like the above, about how best to involve people at this challenging time. What is clear is that politicians’ debates over the history and validity of the Big Society idea will not be enough to instil a readiness and willing for a new collective responsibility – that will need a far more nuanced, clever and targeted campaign for change. 

By Sarah Holloway, OPM senior researcher

Sarah Holloway

Building the Big Society: Views from the voluntary sector

Posted on by

Over the past couple of months, we have been speaking to leaders from a variety of voluntary organisations to canvass their opinions on the topic of the Big Society. How does the agenda offer new opportunities to a sector that already focuses on engagement? And what conditions will allow the sector to grasp these new opportunities, while overcoming the challenges of impending funding cuts?

Watch the video below for the some of the key messages coming from leaders of the voluntary sector.

What do you think are the key challenges and opportunities for the voluntary sector in relation to the Big Society? Do post your comments below, we are keen to hear your thoughts.

We’d like to thank the following for their time and their valuable contribution to this debate.

Sarah Elie, executive director, Somers Town Community Association

Julia Carette, chief officer, Worthing CVS

Susanne Rauprich, chief executive, NCVYS

Penny Nicholls, director of children and young people, The Children’s Society

By Max Toynbee, OPM research assistant

Max Toynbee

How can the Big Society work in a risk-averse culture?

Posted on by

Twice in the last week I’ve overheard conversations about Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks. The first time was last Sunday at a football match. In the row behind me, a middle-aged man told a story about how his CRB returned with a conviction after applying to volunteer at a primary school. The reason: drunk in a sports ground in 1996. The second time was yesterday on the bus. A man was talking on his mobile, comforting a friend who had been turned down for a job: ‘The CRB check? Well they’re ridiculous anyway. You need one of them to drive a friend’s kid to school. We need to get rid of them and get back some common sense.’

The last government introduced a set of stringent measures at the end its tenure designed to protect the most vulnerable in society – namely children and young people when under the care of adults – from being exploited. The policy was controversial as it included seemingly innocuous examples of contact, such as neighbours babysitting or offering lifts to school, within its definition of risk.

A difficult process

It was also seen as impractical. A CRB check is costly and onerous and can take months to process. The joke in the charity sector is that the CRB has put more people off volunteering than actually gained them entry.

I can vouch for the arduous process. I spent last summer helping employees from a top multi-national company fill in CRB forms for them to take part in a company-wide volunteering scheme with a national charity. What should have been a straightforward administrative task was painful and protracted. The CRB rejected application after application, not for criminal offences but for missing information or basic mistakes. Eventually I wrote additional instructions to highlight exactly which sections the employees should fill out, to supplement the already existing guidelines offered by the Home Office. The charity had to offer a second wave of volunteer opportunities for all the employees that missed the original deadline.

So, in an era of Big Society, where red tape and bureaucracy will supposedly be cut and ‘real people’ empowered to deliver local services, can we assume that the CRB process will be revised or removed altogether? Will volunteers be fast-tracked into roles quickly to pick up devolved power and be responsive to local needs? And if the Big Society does herald the ‘return to common sense’ then who and what is accountable in litigation terms? How is ‘common sense’ reconciled with risk?

The real problem

But the problem of the CRB check lies not in its intent, as the philosophy of providing a standardised and thorough criminal review of adults in charge of children and young people is entirely sound. Nor does it necessarily lie in the complicated and long-winded process of the application form, though much could be done to improve the process. In actuality, the problem of the CRB exists mainly in the inflexible interpretation of the CRB when an offence is returned.

There are numerous examples where the CRB works counter-intuitively, particularly where young people are concerned. As written elsewhere, volunteering opportunities are an excellent opportunity to gain skills and work experience, and some of the best peer-mentors are ex-young offenders. In this way, often those with the most to gain from volunteering are often denied legitimate opportunities because of an irrelevant conviction.

In this way, common sense should not replace the CRB entirely. Rather it should be exercised when comparing the previous offence with the opportunity applied for, to gauge whether the offence is a legitimate barrier to volunteering. The process should be supported by an investigative and non-judgemental recruitment process including interviews and collecting character references. In this way, the CRB alone should not determine the outcome of an application.

Common sense

I can’t say whether my fellow football fan should be allowed to volunteer with children with a conviction for being drunk. But common sense suggests that the conviction should not automatically mean he cannot. Therefore it is both the format of the CRB form and the process leading to the outcome of the check – especially if a conviction is returned – that must be revisited if volunteers are going to be recruited in numbers demanded by the ambition of the Big Society. Common sense comes with risk. But the process must be managed so that applicants with the most to gain from volunteering are allowed to do so. It may seem ironic but red tape is fundamental to successfully implementing the Big Society without risking or excluding the most vulnerable of our society.

By Linda Roberts, OPM senior researcher

Linda Roberts

This week’s top Big Society reads

Posted on by

It’s been a rather busy week on the Big Society front, with some significant announcements from central as well as local government, and some important positioning announcements from the third sector.

So, with encouragement from Warren Hatter, here’s another weekly round up of Big Society reading highlights. In no particular order:

1.      Chief Executive of NCVO, Sir Stuart Etherington, gave a lecture of the CASS business school, outlining his take on the agenda. While he welcomed the drive for citizens to become, ”makers and shapers’ rather than simply ‘users and choosers”, he believes the retrenching of the role of the state will not best serve this vision. ‘It should not just be about the state pulling back, but about the state and civil society working together, supporting each other through the different roles they play’. A full transcript of his thoughtful speech can be found here.

2.      Points could mean prizes in Windsor & Maidenhead – the vanguard authority has announced its intention to encourage volunteering and participation through an incentive or a loyalty scheme modelled on those used in high street shops. The council says, ‘the idea is based on ‘nudge theory’ – the thought that people don’t automatically do the right thing but will respond if the best option is highlighted. Points would be awarded according to the value given to each activity. Users could then trade in their points for vouchers giving discounts on the internet or high street.’

3.      New leader for the Office for Civil Society named – as the department combines forces with the Cabinet Office’s strategy unit to devise ideas and initiatives for encouraging volunteering and philanthropy.

4.      The latest on the Big Society bank – while there is still no detail on the practicalities of how and when the bank will be granting access to its unclaimed assets,  it has been confirmed (by junior children’s minister, Tim Loughton)  that the majority of the assets will be earmarked for projects with children and young people.

5.      NEF’s most recent report, ‘Cutting It‘ has warned that the outcome of the coalition’s policy in the current context of cuts will be ‘a poorer, more hard-pressed society, not a bigger one’. The question for those dealing with the aftermath of cuts is how to avoid this most bleak of outlooks…

By Sarah Holloway, OPM senior researcher

Sarah Holloway

Tales of the Big Society

Posted on by

The four speakers at a recent Local Government Association (LGA) panel event took very different approaches to talking about the Big Society, often drawing on personal reflections and experiences. But while this kind of subjective dialogue has its place, it feels like a more solid and substantive approach will be needed to move the Big Society debate a step forward.

Analogies, reflections and anecdotes

Lord Bates, a Conservative peer, gave an example of what he saw as Big Society-type activities, describing how he had weeded the path at the end of a neighbour’s drive. He used this to segue into an analogy between the early days of environmentalism, which was largely dismissed as the concern of cranks and eccentrics, and where we are with the Big Society. Now, he said, almost everyone does something to minimise their environmental impact. In 25 years, he suggested, almost everyone will be doing Big Society-type activities.

Stella Creasey, a Labour MP, was argumentative, analysing the programme and identifying a number of errors including, she said, fundamental misunderstandings of the nature of volunteering, the importance of the role of local authorities in fostering and supporting a long-existing and thriving volunteer culture and of what motivates people to volunteer.

Richard Kemp, a Liberal Democrat Councillor in the City of Liverpool and vice chair of the LGA took a more cautious approach. He was concerned about the optimism surrounding the Big Society agenda, arguing that there are limits to people’s desire for involvement in volunteering and emphasised people’s dislike of committees. But he pointed as well to the myriad every day acts of kindness that people do, which are voluntary but perhaps not seen as ‘volunteering’.

Finally, prompted by the question – ‘Big Society: Great Expectations or damp squib?’ – Robin Millar from the Centre for Social Justice described the Big Society as an event turning politics on its head, but one that needed to be handled carefully. He felt that we should address the root cause rather than the symptoms of problems.

Answers to the Big Questions remain out of reach

It’s perhaps understandable that in light of the lack of clarity about what Big Society is or means, the speakers turned to personal anecdotes and reflections, but this did mean that we didn’t get as deeply into some of the real questions as we might.

For example, is there confusion about the type of engagement being called for in the Big Society? Does it conflate consumer power and collective action? How will accountability work? What is the infrastructure required? How will local councillors develop the skills needed to lead in this new society – or is it actually just the old society re-modelled?

So, if anecdotes and stories can only get us so far, what might be a more constructive approach to answering some of these tough questions?

A more ambitious debate

First, we need to put more evidential flesh on the bones of the Big Society idea. This could be done in a number of ways. We could return to existing data but use the Big Society as a lens through which to view it.

We will definitely need to collect data that will help us to understand the ways in which local authorities interpret the power of general competence, which will clear the legal space for Big Society initiatives more ambitious than weeding. And we will need to understand what they are actually doing under the Big Society banner – what challenges are they facing, how are they managing risk, what partnerships are they forging, and much more.

Much of the argument about the Big Society seems to be about branding – people don’t like this term very much. But no one seems to disagree that it’s a ‘good thing’ for people to ask if their neighbours are ok, do a bit of weeding or start a community trust to run a local park, or get more information about how their council spends their money.

The arguments will, I think, be about things such as the balance in the market between different providers and whether the private sector is primed to step into the space in a way that much of the voluntary sector is currently not; how accountability works; which organisational form is most likely to protect public value; whether we will lose already dwindling public space; what happens if local groups take the message at face value and really do take power but in a way that the centre does not like?; what sense will people make of information on spending if it’s context free?

I don’t think any of these things are settled or written into or out of the Big Society. That’s why it is incredibly important to understand the way it develops, to keep returning to these questions and to resist either/or questions such as those that framed the debate at the LGA event. And it’s also why it’s an interesting but anxiety-causing idea.

By Diane Beddoes, OPM senior fellow

Diane Beddoes

Volunteering and the Big Society

Posted on by

As a part of the Big Society agenda, the Conservatives have talked of their aim to ‘foster and support a new culture of voluntarism and philanthropy,’ particularly in relation to community organising.¹

A ‘culture of voluntarism’ will, in theory, allow the state to transfer power back to local people who can take control over the direction of their community.

Yet this concept rests on a number of assumptions, which, if not critically examined, could increase social exclusion, and further stigmatise disadvantaged groups who are least able to volunteer, and in the local areas that could benefit the most. It also wrongly polarises all volunteering as ‘good’, with all non-volunteers as ‘bad’.

The meaning of volunteering

Volunteering is generally defined as an altruistic act, embarked upon selflessly to benefit others. Volunteering England broadly defines volunteering as ‘an unpaid activity where someone gives their time to help an organisation or an individual they are not related to’.²

Time is given for free, often to support strangers, with no financial or other form of remuneration expected in return. The process is often described as ‘giving something back to society’. A recent survey run by the Institute for Volunteering Research (IVR) showed that the highest scoring motivating factor for volunteering was ‘I wanted to improve things, help people’.³

The definition does not take into account that not everyone can afford to volunteer their time for free. People that can afford to volunteer may be acting out of a supposed moral duty but it is their material circumstances that enable them to do so. Those on tight budgets or living in chaotic communities may not have the time to spare or financial stability needed to focus their energies outside their own home, irrespective of their moral compass.

It seems ironic, especially when volunteering can help improve skills and increase confidence, that unemployed people are disincentivised from volunteering. Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) can be stopped if job-seekers volunteer as it is assumed that it prevents them from attending interviews. Young offenders, often the best peer mentors, are traditionally excluded from volunteering with young people because their criminal record triggers a rejection in the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check.

The morality of volunteering

These types of definitions also help perpetuate the assumption that all volunteering is an act of moral responsibility. It suggests that the main benefit of volunteering rests externally to the volunteer – in other words, volunteering is presented as a noble act of sacrifice – which ignores the benefits to the volunteers themselves who can gain skills, social opportunities and a sense of well-being. It suggests the process – the giving up of time – is more important than the actual deed undertaken. In fact, misplaced volunteering is at best meaningless and at worst harmful. A ‘culture of voluntarism’ lauds the sacrifice of time and money without ever defining how ‘good’ should be determined or measured.

To uncritically accept the notion of a ‘culture of voluntarism’ is to conflate the moral with the practical. It suggests that non-participation in volunteering is the result of lack of moral inclination whereas, in reality, some people are excluded from volunteering because they have other demands on their time. In this way, not only are socially deprived areas least likely to have volunteers, but worse: their residents are most likely to be condemned for not caring about their local community, as opposed to understanding their needs are focused within the home rather than beyond it.

Benefits for the volunteer

Instead, volunteering should be understood as a two-way process with the opportunity to learn as well as ‘give back’. At a time of rising youth unemployment, volunteering opportunities need to be relevant and tailored to individual needs, to offer skills, broaden horizons and provide a route into employment.

The process should be open to those who may benefit the most from the process, particularly, job seekers and young offenders. The expense policy needs examining to ensure that costs such as travel, sustenance and, controversially, child minding, are reimbursed to support those on tight incomes and for socially-isolated or young parents.

Finally, the definition of ‘good’ voluntary activity needs to be determined by everyone in the community and not just by the people with the time and money to spare. This should be conducted in a way that recognises that everyone has the right to influence their locality, even if they cannot contribute to its development via volunteering routes.

Recent OPM fieldwork in disadvantaged estates revealed a real concern that local priorities were set by the ‘same old faces’ rather than everyone in the estate. As a result, their cynical view of the possibilities of volunteering was limited to ‘the charity shop’ rather than a means to tackle the real – and hard – issues that mattered most to residents.

These suggestions will help the ‘culture of voluntarism’ move away from parochial Victorian paternalism to more meaningful and inclusive volunteering. Communities need to work in a truly consultative way and establish locally-owned goals and remove any sense of moral superiority.

By Linda Roberts, OPM senior researcher

Linda Roberts






1 http://www.conservatives.com/News/News_stories/2010/07/Our_Big_Society_Agenda.aspx
2 Volunteering England (2009) Information sheet: http://www.volunteering.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/2EE949AA-64B4-465F-A6A9-283C3C5A96DB/0/ISDefinitionsofVolunteeringVE09.pdf
3 IVR (2007) Who gives time now? Research bulletin: http://www.ivr.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/1225B8F0-57AD-4830-89D6-AF6448D7AAF7/0/Final_Giving_Time.pdf