Voluntary Sector is "full up"?

BBC web site reports http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6402965.stm


The government has won a vote over plans to privatise the Probation Service, despite a backbench revolt. MPs voted 293 to 268 in favour of the Offender Management Bill - cutting the government's majority from 62 to 25. Critics said letting firms and voluntary groups in England and Wales run services would increase reoffending rates and destroy "local connections".

When one’s partner is someone who has worked as a probation officer for over 20 years waking up to this news is not a pleasant experience, as it was me and the dog that were lightning conductors for anger directed at John Reid and the stupid government..

But the issue it raises for me is where will the governments expectations of the voluntary sector end? In one area after another they are looking to the third sector, the voluntary, community and faith groups to take on work loads, and compete for contracts that in previous times were seen as the natural task for the local or national state.

My own local experience in this sector is suggesting that we ought to recognize there is an absolutely limited capacity in the sector to do any more and that before long we shall need to put up signs saying “sector full up” or “services suspended due to staff shortages”.

For example I was at a local neighbourhood management board this week, trying with others to move forward co-ordinated local regeneration action and service delivery. While I find this commendable in terms of the desire to collaborate and implement joined up planning, and in the desire to give local residents a voice in the way their locality develops, the practical reality is somewhat different. There were about 15 (good and committed) people in the room. Four or five were local residents although two of them draw a salary from an organisation working in the area, which is largely funded out of the public purse and were there in work time. The rest were all employees of statutory bodies or their arms length agencies, including the police, the city council, two registered social landlords, an FE college, and SRB funded community projects. Only three people were giving unpaid voluntary service in attending this meeting, although at least 10,000 local residents would be eligible to be involved in the process of neighbourhood management. Community meetings in this city typically follow this pattern, despite calls for widening participation in volunteering and community governance, there appears to be a small pool of “active citizens” sometimes known as “usual suspects”, and most of them are paid.

For those involved in the Third Sector research and policy making it poses these key questions:

1. Do we have a clear definition of what “voluntary action” means and an understanding that much of what goes on in the “voluntary sector” is no longer truly “voluntary”?

2. Are there measurable limits to the quantity of voluntary action or potential volunteer hours available within the population of the UK and in the context of other demands on peoples time, (e.g. earning a living, caring for self and family, being a consumer, leisure and entertainment) are we nearing that limit? Is any one (Institute of Volunteering Research??) doing research on this?

3. Given the wide range of opportunities for unpaid contributions to the community which choices do volunteers make? My impression is that lots of people offer time in sports clubs, in religious groups, in some campaigns, in fund raising drives and in some hobby and leisure groups, but that apart from the few “usual suspects” most are reluctant to engage in neighbourhood community action, in committee and trusteeship work for the sector and in anything to do with politics. I should think the data from the Home Office citizenship surveys bears this out, though I haven’t had time to check it.

One final thought with Red Nose Day coming up. I wonder if in our celebrity and consumer culture we are seeing a phenomenon of “vicarious volunteering”. In sociology of religion Grace Davie and others have argued that the typical form of English religion in the late 20th Century was “vicarious Christianity”. People believed in a vague way but didn’t bother to belong to a church or take an active role, or give more than a few pence, but expected the church to be there to pray for them to christen, marry and bury people as necessary and to offer practical help in time of need. How far is it the case that the general public feel warm that Lenny Henry, Bob Geldorf and their mates organise TV charitythons, might give a few hours of their time and a couple of quid to the collection, but are really quite relieved that a few other people are paid to deliver charitable service to the homeless, the refugees, the children with cancer and leaning difficulties? Is anyone doing current research on the contemporary culture of charity and volunteering? What do you think they would discover?