Big Society - challenges and opportunities
Submitted by Elizabeth Chamber... on Tue, 25/05/2010 - 11:24
On 18th May 2010 the new Government announced its initial plans with regards to the Big Society agenda. This was shortly followed by the publication of the Programme 'Building the Big Society', which outlines to policies already agreed upon to achieve this ambitious agenda. But what do we really know about it and how will it work?
The general approach is one that emphasises social responsibility and community action. In practice, most of the proposals will be developed over the coming months, and some ideas are better worked out than others. We have now published NCVO's briefing on the 'Big Society Programme. As identified in our briefing, the main themes that underpin the 'Big Society' are:
- devolving power to communities and local government;
- a greater role in public services for VCOs and other civil society organisations;
- supporting the voluntary and community sector.
But what will this mean in practice for our sector? What are the challenges and what are the opportunities? How will this agenda fit in with the severe public spending cuts due to be unveiled in the budget?
What do you think the 'Big Society' will mean for our sector in general and for your organisation in particular?
Over the coming months, NCVO will seek to help develop the 'Big Society' agenda. We want to ensure the contribution voluntary and community organisations make to the lives of individuals and communities is properly understood and supported.
So please share your views, hopes and fears. They are important to us!
I have a concern about the promises we have been hearing about transferring work or services to the voluntary sector. Whilst this might appear to be an unqualified 'good' I fear that it will only serve to continue to erode the independent nature of the voluntary sector. I am not advocating a purist idea of the VS and we must make pragmatic compromises when necessary. However, the more we provide services that, naturally, are required to meet the requirements of the purchaser/commissioner, the more likely it is that we shall stray from the core values of our individual charities.
For example, the NHS has allocated a large amount of money to Increase Access to Psychological Therapy (IAPT). However, they specify that all the therapies they purchase must conform to just one methodology (cognitive-behaviourism) which, on its own, is inadequate for most presenting problems.
As VS organisations become more business-minded and managerial in outlook a concern for core values becomes increasingly easy to ignore as the pragmatic search for income becomes predominant.
It seems to me that like any new initiative, there are big opportunities for the sector - but also potential pitfalls, with a reduced focus on a charities core values just one of them.
Like many examples of good rhetoric, nobody is quite sure what 'big society' means yet, but most agree that they like it very much. You only have to look at the responses from the sector to see a remarkable number of organisations who welcome it, and claim at least part of it as their own.
At the moment, it seems to be working in tandem with “civil society” as a kind of linguistic pincer movement to corral the voluntary sector into the required shape. Of course, as new phrases and words gain favour, they push out others that suddenly have the association of failure and the past. There must be a big bin somewhere in Whitehall stuffed full of Office of the Third Sector business cards, rubbing shoulders with a wodge of DCSF compliment slips.
Suddenly, these new words and phrases are everywhere, being used with great authority by chancers and leaders alike.
The challenge for the voluntary sector now is two-fold: creating real meaning and substance behind these phrases, and communicating their value and relevance to supporters and the wider public. The cold, hard truth is that neither have had any real resonance with the general public yet. It is instructive that when “big society” was birthed to the nation as one of the key planks of the Tory election campaign, it was met with indifference and quickly relegated to the outer reaches of the campaign.
One of the lovely things about the general public is they have a tendency to ask the questions you least want to answer and can smell a lack of conviction or truth from a mile away.
Any charity that wants to claim aspects of these phrases as their own with a wider audience is going to have to tread very carefully indeed. Get it right and you can find yourself at the centre of a zeitgeist, riding a wave of relevance and striking just the right cord. Get it wrong, however, and you might be cleaning the egg off your brand and reputation for a long time to come. Words and phrases of this type have a nasty habit of going stale just as organisations have invested time and effort into communicating them.
A year from now, the picture may look very different. We might have seen concept of Big Society take root, and the voluntary organisations who championed it reaping the benefits in terms of raised profile, more public sector contracts and increased fundraising income.
Then again, we might be looking back at the collective madness that gripped the sector in its enthusiasm for these now dim and distant concepts. Who knows which way it will go – the only thing we can be sure of is that the word “stakeholder” is truly dead and buried.
Gillian Daines
Forster
gillian@forster.co.uk
Michael, I completely agree with you.
Voluntary organisations need to stay true to their core values especially when entering into a financial relationship with the state.
There could be a much bigger role for charities and voluntary sector organisations - income from statutory funding has increased dramatically in recent years yet this only accounts for a tiny proportion (2%) of total government spending.
But how we engage with this agenda as a sector will be really important, it strikes me there are a number of ground rules that need to be set from the outset and I would encourage organisations to try and get past the rhetoric of the 'Big Society' agenda and engage with the detail as it emerges (see my blog here - the Big Society Backlash?).
Nat Wei (now Lord Wei the Government's advisor on Big Society) has been floating some of his ideas in speeches and press articles, we'll try to keep track of them here so please feel free to post other links of interest).
It's also worth keeping an eye on the Big Society Network blog.
I've tried to sum up some of the numbers behind the big society in a blog post - the research team here at NCVO is going to be looking further into the evidence base for the big society over the next few weeks.
And there's one important question missing from the debate so far: is it "Big Society" or "big society"?
Whilst the rhetoric sounds interesting and appealing to the voluntary and community sector, I am a bit concerned about how the opportunities this may present, will translate into real voice and equality for the voiceless in society. For example, the much maligned asylum seekers and refugees in the UK who are always chastised by the press/media and politicians as the problem community; will they have a say and a voice in the 'Big Society'? Will their voice continue to be marginalised by the 'Big' voices or the 'Usual Suspects' in the sector, who shout the loudest? Minorities in the UK, have for too long, being seen by most sectors in society as just 'recipients' of services to be patronised and researched to death, without any sustainable improvement on the gross and disproportionate inequalities they experience. Will they be equal partakers in the Big Society? Of course, there is the growing white 'underclass' that are feeling alienated in UK society, and as a result, look to blame 'immigrants' as taking their jobs, houses, etc, and this blame game is a convenient excuse for government not to engage effectively with this much excluded community. How can the notion of the 'Big Society' engage effectively and bridge the gap in terms of improving understanding, relationships and community linkages/cohesion between the wihite underclass (i.e. 'working class') and other traditionally excluded groups such as BME and refugee and asylum seekers? These are very important questions that need to be dealth with by the VCS, as we reach the zenith of economic uncertainties and the potential consequences these my bring to our society.
I think we can expect to be involved more in decision making, which is great news but I am worried that there will be limited or no finance for us to assist with this. Our overheads need to be covered to keep the organisation open so that local authorities can effectively and efficiently engage with the community. Otherwise local authorities...expect to go knocking door to door for people to answer surveys, consultations - which is more expensive in the long run and you will find the results less helpful/productive, leading to services that poorly meet the needs of the community. In turn this means that outcomes are poor and becomes more expensive to run services and correct mistakes. David Cameron, please ensure that community engagement is funded so that the "Big Society" works! Just asking your upper-class best pals for their opinions isn't going to effectively reflect the needs of vulnerable communities! You need to provide infrastructure for vulnerable communities to be involved in engagement.
Thought you guys might be interested in our latestr newsletter, where we asked people from businesses and the public how BS might work for them. http://sut5.co.uk/l/c.php?c=3049&ct=106214
Mike Kelly from KPMG's views on what charities need to do to work more effectively with businesses particularly of interest. http://www.forster.co.uk/blog.30.0.html
Thanks Gillian - that's helpful.
It's now been 100 days since the Coalition Government took office - we've pulled together a handy overview of the main developments relating to the voluntary and community sector.
NCVO has been working hard on a number of issues in the first 100 days (feeding into the Comprehensive Spending Review, looking at the Government's proposals for deregulation, talking to the Government about its Big Society proposals, and campaigning on issues such as gift aid, the fit and proper persons test and music licensing, and most importantly mapping and responding to cuts being made to the sector).
What do you think of the Coalition Government's first 100 days?
What do you think NCVO should prioritise in the next 100 days?
Overall points
I support the Government's 'Big Society'proposals in principle, so long as self-help and self-determination are seen as complementary to, and not a substitute for, state support and assistance to English rural communities.
I would like Government to draw on lessons from previous relevant initiatives e.g. Vital Villages (including Parish Plans), the Local Heritage Initiative LHI, and Rural Action - all of which, in their time, exemplified the Big Society's (BS) aim to "empower communities to come together to address local issues." I would also commend reviewing the impressive Peak District Integrated Rural Development Project from the 1980s [Two Villages Two Valleys, Peak National Park, 1990, ISBN 0907543-383].
Drawing on past successes can usefully inform future action and save 'reinventing the wheel'.
Similarly, in relation to BS proposals for "independent community organisers to help people establish and run neighbourhood groups", I hope that Government will draw in/on the experience of ACRE Action with Communities in Rural England, constituent RCCs/county-based ACRE bodies, and most specifically their field officers & patchworkers. Not least because research "demonstrates that community development workers play a crucial role as intermediaries, knitting together the patchwork of community aspirations and outside help" (Community Engagement and Leadership publication, 2005 page 7 for the CRC, available at http://www.ruralcommunities.gov.uk/files/NALC%20Policy%20Lflt.pdf)
Specific points
Funding cuts/challenges. (Rural) community development is a discretionary area of operation directly delivered or funded by principal authorities. In order to deliver BS aspirations, that funding must be protected; otherwise rural community self-help will become incomplete, diminished and retarded. As a related point rural community development has traditionally been marked and marred by short-termism - typically 1-3 year funding for projects and community development workers, which does not foster stability and sustainability. These points are supported by the report 'Skills and knowledge needed in the near future by English rural communities' (published 2009 by ACRE for the Carnegie UK Trust and attached to this message) which highlighted problems related to "the short-termism of many programmes and support structures" (Appendix One).
The report also reviews "the key skills and knowledge needed by rural communities to become more resilient and adaptive to change over the next twenty years" (attached, page 1).
Opportunities
Building on the BS idea of a National Citizen Service for 16 year olds, I would like to see a 'Green Gap Year' offered to students between school and university; as a form of purposeful and peaceful National Service.
Teenagers could undertake say six months work of community benefit, in pursuit of sustainability or projects to address climate change in a local community, in exchange for an educational credit equivalent to their first year's tuition fee (currently £3,000 per head). The 3K figure could be financed by the 'Robin Hood Tax' or by using amounts from dormant bank accounts - as David Cameron has suggested for 'Big Society' initiatives.
In this way young people could serve the needs of society, gain valuable life and study skills in the process (timekeeping, team work etc.) and be helped to make the transition from school and dependence, to university and greater independence. It could also support and foster community ventures, and make a practical contribution towards building the Coalition's 'Big Society'/movement to localism.
I believe that the Government's proposals for a Community Right to Build CRB give practical expression to localism and the Big Society; and agree with the Minister that the Community Right to Build CRB can hopefully harness & constructively channel NIMBYism so that it becomes IMBYism.....IN my back yard. [Source: 'Grant Shapps sets out vision to protect and preserve rural village life' CLG 23 July. http://www.communities.gov.uk/news/corporate/1648312]. And, just as David Cameron has announced in relation to Cumbria and the 'Big Society', why not 'pilot' the 'Community Right to Build' in 3 or 4 local authority areas ... and test the idea before committing further.
Finally, I hope that the Big Society will fully connect with, recognise and build on the actions and experiences of Parish and Town Councils - local authorities closest to residents in urban and rural areas - in existence since 1894, at the junction between representative and participatory democracy, and (crucially) able to finance initiatives of community benefit.
They also represent a source of local knowledge, resources and contacts (to support BS initiatives).
Thank you again for this opportunity to make an input.
James Derounian BSc (Hons) MPhil MRTPI FHEA FILCM
Principal Lecturer in Community Development & Local Governance
National Teaching Fellow
University of Gloucestershire
GL50 4AZ
Telephone 01242-714562
jderounian@glos.ac.uk
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the 'Community Right to Build' CRB; which I strongly support in principle. I think there are some practical/detailed points to iron out but overall I think this is a very useful initiative.
Detailed points
· Source: ‘Grant Shapps sets out vision to protect and preserve rural village life’ CLG 23 July. http://www.communities.gov.uk/news/corporate/1648312
I agree with the Minister that the Community Right to Build CRB can hopefully harness & constructively channel NIMBYism so that it becomes IMBYism.....IN my back yard.
· The Community Right to Build leaflet CLG 23 July.
· http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/housing/righttobuildleaflet As the ‘Community Right’ already acknowledges: “in order to prevent overdevelopment, communities will be able to expand.....by a maximum of 10% over any 10 year period.” I think this is a reasonable figure & counters arguments that this is in any way a ‘developers’ charter’.
· CRB Background paper CLG.
· http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/newsroom/pdf/1647765.pdf I agree that the CRB gives practical expression to localism and the Big Society. I feel that the suggested 10% opposition to a proposal (via referendum) causing it to fall is too low.....and would be open to specious or mischievous abuse, say based around personalities. So in a village of 1,000 adult population you could have a clear majority in favour, but it could still be blocked by 100 dissenters; I’d up it to say 15-20% to avoid the scenario I paint.
· FAQs I think it is a mistake to rule out rural market towns from the CRB (p.3). English rural market towns are severely pressured in terms of high house prices and a mechanism such as this to secure affordable homes would be invaluable. Furthermore, there have been so many reports (from Elinor Goodman, Matthew Taylor MP etc.) trumpeting the dire need for affordable homes in rural towns & villages that here, at last, is (potentially) a simple, empowering mechanism.
· In addition, as David Orr, the National Housing Federation’s chief executive, commented in September last year “on average people have to wait 90 years for a social rented home and every month sees the closure of one rural school”. This is not acceptable, and represents a ‘time bomb’ for society as a whole – if the young and low/no waged continue to be locked out of the housing market. The Rural White Paper 2000 highlighted the plight of market towns in terms of housing need/potential to deliver.
· Response to the Head of Planning at the Campaign to Protect Rural England CPRE: her muted support limply stated that “local people should always be given a say in development.” How generous! A ‘say’ but not ‘the’ say......really, it’s time that a grown up democracy truly handed power to local communities and didn’t say one thing and do another. And let’s face it; thus far the political, financial and planning systems have failed those in need of affordable homes.
· So far the ‘Community Right to Build’ seems predicated on 80-90% support from a parish referendum. This is likely to be impossible at several levels: For example, the parish (parish council area) may well contain more than one village. Both in principle and practice a parish vote of 80-90% in favour is unlikely…..why would people in let’s say Painswick (Gloucestershire) support or even vote in relation to housing in Sheepscombe village (both of which are in the same parish)? Surely the better measure would be say a percentage of the relevant village population……maybe with the cut-off as the development boundary around the village? 80-90% also sounds way too high.....given those who choose not to vote and those voting against. Regardless, surely a vote of say 65% in favour would send a clear signal and mandate to proceed. [Any Government or local authority consultation would be mighty pleased with a 65% response let alone support....and the turnout at the General Election only average some 65% across the country!
· It’s clear from the thousands of DIY Parish Plans and appraisals completed around England, that a majority of residents support development of affordable housing for local people. Take a look at my work from as long ago as 1996 (with Phil Allies & Malcolm Moseley: ‘Parish appraisals – a spur to local action?’ Town Planning Review, Vol 67 no.3 pp 309-329) that demonstrated “a readiness to accept a modest amount of low cost housing for local people” expressed via community generated plans. This is also reinforced by my 2005 ‘Analysis of Oxfordshire Parish Plans’ (p.10/12) provision of affordable housing (esp. For young people) was the most cited concern expressed across 15 Oxfordshire Parish Plans reviewed: http://portal.oxfordshire.gov.uk/content/publicnet/council_services/community_living/our_work_with_communities/community_planning/Analysis_of_OxfordshireParishPlans.pdf
· Finally, just as David Cameron has announced in relation to Cumbria and the ‘Big Society’, why not ‘pilot’ the ‘Community Right to Build’ in 3 or 4 local authority areas......and when you do, Mr Shapps, I really hope you select my own principal authority - Tewkesbury Borough in Gloucestershire (I look forward to hearing from you)!
James Derounian BSc (Hons) MPhil MRTPI FHEA FILCM
Principal Lecturer in Community Development and Local Governance
University of Gloucestershire