18 April 2011

The Big Society and the struggle for the soul of the voluntary sector

frankie

Anna Coote
Head of Social Policy

David Cameron says that the Big Society is about fostering co-operation and mutualism, but this anonymous report from a volunteer organiser raises fears that it is breeding one-upmanship and unhelpful competitiveness.

If anyone is wondering how the "Big Society" is playing out in practice at local level, here is an unsolicited report from a voluntary action organiser in South-East England. 

 We feel it here. Our purses are being regularly raided for contributions to the parting presents for local public sector colleagues. And there is an emotional weariness abroad, a resigned pessimism in the public sector, exhaustion in the NHS, low morale in the local voluntary sector.

The pup we are being sold grows daily more malevolent: public sector contracts which used to contribute to the mercurial jigsaw of viable core incomes for the voluntary sector will have dried up by the autumn. The local NHS have pulled out; the GP's consortia aren't talking about resourcing; the local authorities are retrenching and trying to protect their own staffing. There's a new Community Development and Big Society Unit round here, whose representative recently spoke at my Local Strategic Partnership. It was clear he knew little about community development, but all about the Government’s real agenda.  Long-serving social and community planning staff with whom we have worked for years sat listening, silent, attending the meeting whilst working out their redundancy notice - an experience I found very moving, both illustrative of what is taking place, and symbolic of its first consequences (let alone those to follow).

Perhaps most wearying of all is the fund raising double-bind which has emerged around volunteering and sustainability. You have to lie continually, promise the earth, in order to get anywhere - and everyone including the funders knows it. That's why they request increasingly pseudo-sophisticated measures of performance, of course, so that the struggle to measure the often incommensurable (hence, truly the preserve of informed judgement) veils the otherwise obvious hypocrisy. Everything has to be miraculously "sustainable" by using volunteers, or being a "social enterprise".

But this isn't rocket science, is it? In fact, we have been there for years, and know that this reserve army of skilled and dependable volunteers simply does not exist in sufficient numbers to promise any reliable quality of service for people in real need.

The author didn’t want to be named because – like so many – he feels he has too much to lose by speaking out publicly.  His optimistic strategy, he says, is "trying to build a quiet alliance to subvert the worst consequences,  between local public sector staff, elected members committed to quality public services locally,  trades unions and the voluntary sector."

He wonders how many will be prepared to stand up and speak when the ‘Big Society’ fails to deliver.  There’s a "struggle for the soul of voluntary action", with battle lines drawn between co-operation and mutual aid on one side, and competition and philanthropy on the other.

For more on the Big Society and how it fits in with the austerity agenda, read Anna's report Cutting it: The "Big Society" and the new austerity.

Share this:

Comments

18 Apr 2011 at 14:24

Voluntary Sector Worker

Funding is a real issue with volunteers and staff spending weeks on multiple applications for good projects to funders who have little money and expect the earth, very often. It used to be that if you had a good project you had a good chance of getting funding and so the time was spent well and projects could progress. Now months can be lost and momentum for development lost on applications that are unsuccessful. For smaller non profit making groups who are not charities the ability to apply for funds has almost dried up which wasn't the case a year or two ago. Most voluntary groups can never be social enterprises due the nature of their work being to help the poorest in times of deepest stress. Volunteers also have fatigue from being overstretched and demotivated by an excessive workload due to all the paperwork required for funders and to stay legal. I would be really interested to know how much volunteering the people in the cabinet do? I think they live in la la land when it comes to understanding the complexities of communities taking over services or volunteering. People might be cynical and say that this is all about dismantling good public services and privatising them to help the people who fund the political parties in power. I couldn't possibly comment.

18 Apr 2011 at 15:58

Mark Murton

I worked for quite a while in the charity sector until I became increasingly disullusioned by what was happening. After a few years I started to realise that most people did not understand what the purpose of a charity might be - they just assumed that charities do good things and wouldn't question whether they were in reality helping to change things. I joined a charity as I thought that the State should be providing a service but wasn't currently and that we were there to assist those that had fallen through the cracks and that we therefore had a responsiblity to push for change. Few charities do this any more. What they actually do is compete with each other to provide services that the state should be performing at a reduced cost by paying staff less in wages and benefits amongst other things. Because they are desperate for government money they will do anything they are told without realising that they are undermining the state and encouraging privatisation through the backdoor. The public think they are indendent when the reality is very different and yet most charity workers do not realise this or internalise it because they are too afraid to challenge the practises of their own companies. The government has taken advantage of this by constantly talking about charities taking over public service when in reality they actually have little time for charities either but they know the public will only accept privatisation of public services if they think that charities might be involved. Either way, it will end up in a race to the bottom and poorer services which will damage both charities and the public sector.

19 Apr 2011 at 06:34

Jeff Mowatt

In the Forest of Dean where I live and manage a social enterprise I discover that after years of being rejected in attempts to collaborate with local government and regional development agencies, public funds are now being used to compete with and undermine the revenue source on which our community re-investment depends. With our international background in leveraging micro enterprise development, we have sought to do the same in the UK since 2004 to no avail. In the social impact report I produced recently for the RBS100 index, I illustrate how our work which is self funded is now being used by government to build their own reputation and keep us very much on the outside. http://socialbusiness.socialgo.com/magazine/read/people-centered-economi...