People working in the voluntary sector still don't get 'Big Society'

****

I’ve lost count of the number of government initiatives and funding regimes that I’ve seen during my time in the voluntary sector.

And that's it really. The reason why the idea of a 'Big Society' isn't understood by those who earn their living working in the voluntary sector. For them - and this is borne out by any conversation with any of them - it's all about 'government initiatives and funding regimes'. I know they'll talk the talk about citizen engagement and 'helping people to help themselves' but their daily effort is more often directed to those 'funding regimes' and 'government initiatives' (and to moaning about how they aren't big enough or specific enough or properly targeted).

'Big Society' isn't about those funding regimes. It's about real voluntary action, about people doing things because they love the place they live and want to make it a better place. Or people helping poor people because they think those people merit help. And the involvement ranges from baking a cake for a fundraisers right through to running - entirely voluntarily - big organisations. At no point is it about getting a wage, recovering expenses, let alone having a career. The voluntary sector professional simply cannot get his or her head around the idea that someone might just do it because they want to do it - without payment, without needing their 'professional' input.

Now these voluntary sector professionals (metaphorically sucking their teeth) will then - in that uniquely patronising manner of such folk - explain that all this is fine in a place like Cullingworth, filled as it is with all that lovely social capital. But out there in those deprived areas (so often celebrated by people - I still inwardly cringe remembering the former leader of Bradford Council who wallowed in "I represent one of the 100 most deprived wards in the country" as if this was a good thing) there isn't any of this social capital so those voluntary sector professionals have to go in there and help. Give the community a great big cuddly hug and tell them it will all be alright once the right 'funding regimes' and 'government initiatives' are identified.

'Big Society' isn't about programmes or grand schemes, it's not about offices filled with paid workers (although all of these can and do play their part). It's about the bloke who, instead of moaning to all and sundry about the trough that isn't planted up, blags some compost and a few bedding plants and does it himself. Or the woman who pops in to see if the old lady next door wants a lift into town to do some shopping. A thousand different, small and simple acts of caring make up the big society. Some of them end up growing into fantastic nationally-significant voluntary efforts but most remain as simple and easy acts of kindness done just because it's the right thing to do.

It's this initiative - the real voluntary sector - that makes up the 'Big Society' which is why those making a career out of those 'funding regimes' and 'government initiatives' are blind to the idea. If people did those simple things - had permission to care - then a lot of the stuff the 'voluntary sector' employs people to do wouldn't be needed. And, rather than paid professionals using volunteers we'd have volunteers making use of paid professionals.

....

In praise of the (election) workers

The last few leaflets

At the start of this seemingly interminable election campaign I was delivering 'In Touch' leaflets in Denholme. In that peculiarly Yorkshire spring precipitation that can't decide whether it's rain, snow, sleet or hail. I'd listened earlier to assorted pundits, journalists and such like holding forth about the issues in the election and social media was cluttered with gangs of smiling campaigners waving placards.

And I thought that the image of the election campaign given us by the media is pretty unrealistic. A more accurate picture of election campaigning would show me in a wind-cheater, scarfed up and shivering a little as I plod up Hillcrest Road delivering my own personal little message. And thousands of others doing likewise everywhere across the country. Not just the ones in those Twitter pics waving banners but loads of others who are delivering a few leaflets because they support the cause, because the candidate is a friend, because someone asked and they thought 'why not'.

So when you're feeling a little cynical about politics and politicians think instead about the lady delivering my leaflets up Wilsden Hill, a beautiful, almost unique collection of old agricultural buildings, workers cottages and great views. Or about the old man who delivers them round your way. Politicians (well nearly all of them - I can name a few that don't) recognise the importance of these people, listen to them and understand that they do it for a whole host of reasons.

Yesterday, as the temperature dropped and the clouds gathered in preparation for today's rain, I was delivering my leaflet in Harden. At one house a couple were sat in their summerhouse drinking tea - taking a mid-afternoon break as they put it - and we had a brief conversation. Mostly about the fact (which they hadn't appreciated) that there are local council elections on the same day as the general election but also about my lack of 'minions'. I didn't go on to explain that what 'minions' I have are, in truth, volunteers and mostly elderly. These are the people who help me campaign every year and their number and capability diminishes with each passing year.

When I was first elected - 1995 by just fifteen votes - things were very different. Across the four villages of Bingley Rural we ran a full polling day campaign having canvassed more than half the ward. Every polling station (bar two with only 150 electors each) was manned from 8am through to 8pm, numbers were collected and crossed off. And we knocked up and pulled out - even down to one colleague baby-sitting while someone went to vote and another driving someone to vote as she'd had one or two too many to drink. I remind everyone that this is why I was elected on that day.

On 7th May the same applies - there will be MPs and councillors elected because of those men and women who plodded up damp drives, gashed their fingers on rusty gates, fought the evil that is the English letterbox and braved 'beware of the dog' signs. For sure, all the nice comfortable warm folk clicking on things in their living rooms will have helped too but the real slog done by the party workers come rain or shine is the reason why safe seats stay as safe seats, why marginals are held against the swing and why people we didn't think will get elected get elected.

There are too few of these people - we couldn't muster the numbers to run a full, old-fashioned polling day campaign these days - and the national party headquarters, filled with young folk who've never done one of those campaigns, are not interested in finding more. Yet those people who do that delivering, canvassing, writing addresses, sticking on stamps and bashing in poster stakes are the political party - without them it's just a badge or a brand sustained by large donations or, worse, through state funding.

So, before all the different political leaders, campaign managers and political strategists start taking credit (or blame) for the election result, let's celebrate those ordinary election workers who delivered, rang, stuffed and knocked. They are better and more important than all the David Axelrod and Lynton Crosby sorts that litter our political scene. Well done - whatever party it's for- and thank you.

....

The real voluntary sector - or the Big Society the sector's leaders want to kill off...

****

The Community Development Foundation has published a report looking at what it calls the 'community sector'. This is the myriad of small local groups and charities - CDF estimate between 600,000 and 900,000 of these groups up and down the country. It is the real voluntary sector because, as CDF point out these groups mostly have an income below £2,000 per year and rely entirely on the efforts of enthusiastic volunteers. Nor have those volunteers been 'recruited', 'checked' and 'trained' in the manner of volunteers for big charities and 'voluntary' organisations.

The other thing about this real voluntary sector is where it gets its money from:

Figures from registered micro-groups suggest that community groups receive the largest portion of their funding from individual donations (65%). Other sources include investment (17%), other voluntary sector organisations (12%), government (4%) and the private sector (2%).

The important figure to note here is the 4% from government. Contrast this with the grand charities - Oxfam got £159.8m from various statutory sources in 2012, over 55% of its income and the same story can be told for Barnardos, for The Children's Society and many other big charities. Without grants and fees from government the 'voluntary' sector would be a whole lot smaller.

The government in its various guises provides around 35% of the income for the voluntary sector and, as we can see here, this overwhelmingly goes to large organisations. Partly this reflects the way in which the sector has developed over the years and especially the changes that took place after the election of the 1997 Labour government. That government set about transforming the role of the voluntary sector - or at least the larger organisations within that sector - from independent charities to agents of government policy.

So when the idea of the Big Society arrived the leadership of the voluntary sector saw immediately that the idea of voluntary social action threatened their control of the idea of 'voluntarism'. Rather than voluntary action being seen as the initiative of the volunteers, the sector's leadership preferred to see voluntary action as something to be managed by paid professionals. And this leadership sought out allies within the organisations that fund the big voluntary sector organisations - local councils, the agencies of the lottery, the Arts Council and elements in Whitehall and academia. A coalition of resistance to new voluntary initiatives was created and this set about demonising the idea of Big Society - 'just a cover for cuts', 'neoliberalism' was the cry as the paid professionals in the voluntary sector protected their interests.

The continued existence and success of the 'community' sector is a reminder of how out-of-touch that voluntary sector leadership has become - by focusing almost entirely on protecting state income and advocacy for the larger organisations that dominate the sectors lobbying the professional leadership of the voluntary sector has, in effect, allowed smaller organisations that make up most of the sector to sink or swim. These groups and organisations don't know about the conferences, the workshops and the action groups, they aren't connected to the networks of consultants, managers and directors that dominate the discussion about the work of voluntary action and their voice is lost in special pleading or calls for more funding.

The Big Society was the chance to put these groups centre stage, to celebrate the everyday voluntary action that sticks communities together. It may be that recession and the struggle to make the national budget's sums add up rather meant government took its eye off the ball but, at the same time, the professional leadership of the voluntary sector chose to be agents of the state rather than champions of the volunteer. In short that leadership failed the sector by campaigning to kill the Big Society.

....

6

No, sir, councillors are not part of the voluntary sector

***

Mind you it rather explains a lot about the attitude of the civil service to local government. One mostly of ignorance:

Speaking at the local infrastructure body Navca’s annual conference in London yesterday (22 November), David Prout, director-general for localism at the Communities and Local Government department, said there should be greater recognition of the volunteering efforts undertaken by many of the country’s 20,000 councillors. Prout said they deserved to be regarded as part of the voluntary sector.

This is nonsense on stilts - councillors are elected representatives. You know, like MPs and MEPs. We are part of the formal structures of governance in England - there is no objective difference between a humble parish councillors and David Cameron in this respect.

For sure the great majority of councillors in England - all those parish and town councillors - do it for nothing but that does not change their formal position as decision-makers. Undertaking something voluntarily does not, however, make you part of the "voluntary sector". After all most of the work in that sector is actually done by paid workers not by volunteers.

And frankly councillors don't need patronising by self-important, overpaid civil servants.

....

...and how much is down to state funding then?

****

The NCVO are reporting a 40% increase in the number of people employed by "charities" over the past decade:

The number of people employed by charities rose by 40 per cent in the past decade, according to the NCVO Workforce Almanac, which is published today.

The almanac, compiled in partnership with Skills – Third Sector and the Third Sector Research Centre, shows that at the end of 2010, the total voluntary sector workforce was 765,000, compared with 547,000 in 2001.

The sector employed 2.7 per cent of the UK workforce in 2010, compared with 2 per cent in 2001.

 These are figures up to 2010 - the numbers have fallen since then (and include yours truly). The question is really whether that increased number of employees is the consequence of:

1. Higher levels of government grants, tenders and sub-contracts for "third sector" organisations
2. The pushing aside of volunteers and their replacement with "workers"

Of course, it may be that charities have been raising ever so much more money from our generosity meaning that they can do more good stuff. But my money's on it being taxes!

....

Why doesn't the "voluntary sector" want volunteers?

****

Yesterday I went to a particularly untidy briefing on the changes and developments within the health service. Amongst general moaning about GPs (not helped by the fact that the GP who was supposed to be there wasn’t  - with the resulting disgruntlement from the seven councillors at the briefing very evident) and especially their tendency to resort to medication at the start of treating mental health patients rather than make use of community-based support services.

But this isn’t what I want to talk about. I want to talk about volunteering and why so many in the “third sector” seem to have some sort of ethical problem with the idea of someone doing something to help out without getting paid.

During the discussion the matter of volunteering by individuals on Job seekers Allowance was raised – part of the work programme is to encourage people looking for work to do some voluntary work while they’re looking for paid work.

“We didn’t go on the programme on principle”

The programme seems reasonable to me but for some in the so-called voluntary sector we have this weird, warped ethical barrier – and this appears to be supported by some administering the programme as this answer from the responsible minister at another event suggests:

An audience member questioned Hurd on her personal experience of barriers to volunteering, especially for jobseekers.

Hurd agreed, saying that there was enough evidence that there was a big problem in job centres: “I’ve heard it so often it’s got to be true,” he said. “There is a big problem in some job centres where fear spreads that if you volunteer, you could lose some benefits.

“The Department for Work and Pensions has issued guidance but this is a cultural thing. It needs to go way beyond guidance and look at changing the culture within job centres.”

The problem is that the DWP staff don’t want the hassle of finding placements and the “voluntary” groups will only do it if they’re paid.

It seems to me – and has done for a long while – that the voluntary sector is, in great part, indistinguishable (other than rhetorically) from for-profit businesses competing to deliver public contracts. Much is made of being “not-for-profit” and of “social responsibility” but these are quickly set aside in the unseemly scramble for contracts.

I completely fail to see what “principle” is involved in a voluntary sector organisation refusing to take on a volunteer – I really do.

....

Why on earth to we think bureaucrats will ever understand Big Society?

A great deal of cynicism and vast acres of misinformation accompanies the idea of the ‘Big Society’. Here’s the Guardian:

Is it time to say goodbye to the "big society"? After just a few months, it is clear the idea is in serious trouble. This isn't because we haven't tried. At first, there was a big society boom in the civil service. An entire industry emerged as public and private sector providers competed to sell places on big society seminars, training courses and courses to train people to run courses. Big society position papers shuffled across Whitehall and all departments were asked to write narratives with details of policies that most exemplified the big society.

Despite all this work, we have hit a brick wall. In short, the idea won't work as not enough people will want to make it happen in the years ahead. Government is retreating into a laissez-faire state and telling people to do things for themselves, but won't be providing the staff or the money to help them make the transition. People will soon be earning less money, working more hours (to keep their jobs or earn more money) with fewer services and less support.

For me this narrative – of a vast state bureaucracy failing entirely to understand something – is precisely what I would expect. All those great brains, the well remunerated consultants, self-important pundits and training providers – they’re not part of the Big Society. They are the problem. Of course they don’t “get” the Big Society – it’s not in their personal or collective interests to do so - they are in charge of the castle.

What these bureaucrats do not understand is that the Big Society is not something that can be created by fiat. There is no link between the Big Society and the writing of policy papers, the conducting of conferences or the holding of meetings in well-padded offices on Whitehall. None whatsoever. In fact the Big Society is the very antithesis of these activities – which is why civil servants wish to kill it.

Big Society is about Government not being in control. It’s about bureaucrats not being able to guide and direct. It’s about a world without the besuited, clipboard-wielding jobsworth. It’s about groups of people getting on with doing something they want to do – not waiting cap in hand for the “funding streams” to pay over the money. It’s about volunteers – about doing something because you think you’d like to rather than because you’re paid by some bureaucratic system to do it.

OK, so some of the stuff on the Big Society is a bit up itself (at least rhetorically) but the real problem is that state control – directly through regulation or indirectly through control of funding – has bred out of us the idea that we can actually get something done without government. The agents that made for a Big Society in times past – the co-ops and mutuals, charities large and small, schools and churches – have been corrupted, bedazzled by the sight of all that government cash. Other people’s money to lavish on your pet projects – what could be better!

We face a choice. We can continue to live in a world when rules and regulations are so complicated that the resulting decisions are, to all intents and purposes, arbitrary. Or we can take control of our communities – of our lives, of or families – away from the Government. Away from the dictats of bureaucratic commissars. Away from the big business agents of those bureaucrats.

The Big Society is about making the right choice. It is about us not them. It is about taking a big step towards being free again.

.....

CRB checks: some perspective please!

Yesterday evening was spent with my brother and his wife, Kaye in Weston-super-mare. Kaye is a police officer specialising in child protection issues and always reminds me that not everybody out there is a good guy! And she has done a great deal more work in trying to improve the way in which child protection issues are handled by the police - at least in Avon & Somerset.


So today's media huff about "ordinary parents" having to complete CRB checks to ferry kids to football matches proved an interesting discussion. And between the Children's Minister, Baroness Morgan saying everything is fine and the shadow minister, Chris Grayling suggesting we're going to far, there's some room for common sense.

Of course we should run checks on those people who work with children, young people and vulnerable adults. To do otherwise when we are able to check is a neglect of the duty we place on Government. And that must include volunteers.

However, the current system is inefficient, expensive and duplicating of effort. To give just one example - it is ridiculous that I have to have a CRB check for each of the following:

1. Chairing education transport appeals
2. As a school governor
3. As a manager of a youth cricket team
4. As an employee of a charity providing youth services and delivering youth work

One portable CRB - renewed every two years - should be enough. And bear in mind that, a £50 or so a go, CRB checks are a real cost for many small youth organisations, sports clubs and local community groups. So let's get some sense into this debate, let's reduce the cost of the process and try to recognise that the overall risks remain very small.