Written evidence submitted by TimeBank
(BS 50)
TimeBank has identified five areas for scrutiny and
questioning (numbered to correspond with the "Smaller Government:
'Bigger Society'"? Issues and Questions Paper.) However,
we would particularly like to draw the committee's attention to
our response to question 2, "the impact and consequences
of reductions in public expenditure on the Government's ambitions
to deliver its vision for the Big Society". TimeBank has
very recently been notified that the strategic partner funding
from the Office for Civil Society will be cut, after five years
as a recipient, from 31 March of this year. This has given TimeBank
three weeks to re-structure, make staff redundant and scale back
its direct support to help and encourage volunteers. It will also
affect their ability to roll-out pilot programmes that deliver
services to the mentally ill, refugees and ex-Service men and
women. We cannot possibly see how this action remains congruent
with the Government's vision for the Big Society.
Questions addressed are:
1. A definition of what the "Big Society"
is or should be.
2. The impact and consequences of reductions
in public expenditure on the Government's ambitions to deliver
its vision for the Big Society.
3. The role of and capacity for the voluntary
and community sector to deliver local public services including
the appropriateness of using charitable income or volunteer labour
to subsidise costs.
4. Possible problems and challenges from increased
commissioning of public service provision from the voluntary and
community sector as envisaged by the Government.
6. Governance and accountability issues arising
out of different organisational forms of social enterprises and
co-operatives; and the participation of voluntary sector and community
groups in greater public service provision.
We have submitted our key feedback and are keen to
meet with the Committee to discuss further detail including evidence
for the points we are making.
1. A definition of what the "Big Society"
is or should be
We believe that "Big Society" is: People
who want to have the opportunity to have an active role in shaping
society are supported to do so.
1.1 We believe the Big Society concept happens
already and has been happening for a long time. However Government
finds it hard to measure or control, and there are some inactive
groups that could be encouraged to be more active if they were
given the support they specifically need to get involved where
they can.
1.2 One in four of us volunteer in some form,
either once or more often, according to previous Active Citizenship
surveys and we should be proud of our status in the world outside
of the USA as a particularly active community. Our position as
29th in the world for active citizenship should be borne in mind
with the fact that we are also a country with the longest working
hours. We believe people are giving what they can. Raising awareness
about participation and the value of volunteering through the
Big Society tag is good, but there are limits to what some people
can meaningfully offer. Volunteers need a certain amount of hand-holding
to move them from thinking about volunteering to actually DOING
it and if they receive support along the way they are much more
likely to come back and volunteer again. This is an area that
TimeBank has been particularly influential in with its tailored
support and advice via its "Volurator" which is a volunteer
rating system along the lines of "TripAdvisor".
1.3 Improvements to support the inactive groups
require better local connections in communities, and some interventions
to ensure accessible and inclusive participation facilitated by
experts in this field. This is the value of having local and regional
infrastructures for volunteering in the form of personal bespoke
advice and guidance and not just in electronic form.
1.4 Total local power by residents comes with
a risk of lack of expertise, skills or resource in some communities.
The threat is that wealthier communities will benefit the most,
whilst poorer or less well-connected communities will become worse
off. Communities may also specialise in a particular agenda and
this may prevent inclusion and accessibility. Therefore some degree
of coordination and training is necessary.
1.5 If we do not allow for regional and national
sharing of best practice and communication methods, we risk "reinventing
the wheel" and unnecessary duplication of effort.
1.6 Core services should be automatically provided
with parity of access across the country and the voluntary and
community sector should be providing additionality and not acting
as a substitution for services that have experienced public funding
cuts. It is worth the Committee considering if all volunteering
is necessarily good. For example, the impact on very vulnerable
people from services relying on volunteers rather than paid experts.
1.7 The "Soup kitchen" response is
not the long-term answer to community needs. Experts provide checks
and balances that help individuals and communities become empowered
to change their own circumstances.
1.8 Who will represent those who can't speak
up for any reason? Will only the most active, educated and vocal
citizenships influence services and decision-making? This is also
the role of the voluntary and community sector infrastructure.
1.9 People don't believe their vote really matters.
Will the Locality agenda really change this, or do we need to
combine engagement in local decision-making with local volunteering
action that empowers and gives confidence to the hidden voices
in our community. Ultimately, Government can't define Big Society
and control it.
2. The Impact and Consequences of reductions
in public expenditure on the Government's ambitions to deliver
its vision for the Big Society
2.1 To be able to deliver the vision for the
Big Society, Government needs to understand the role of support
agencies or infrastructure in broadening reach, access and engagement
to volunteering and community activities, as well as its role
in establishing basic good practice, supplying capacity to groups
and communities and reducing the barriers to volunteering with
individuals. Expecting more community activity from individuals
without any source of support, referral, guidance, expertise in
the form of local community experts like Volunteer Centres and
Councils for Voluntary Service is naïve, and if continually
ignored or under-invested in, at some point will need to be reinvented
at greater cost. This has so far, been largely overlooked or,
indeed, written off as a valid point to securing a sustainable
legacy from the Big Society activities supported by Government.
In addition one of the important functions provided by infrastructure
organisations is the ability to implement and monitor safeguarding
controls.
2.2 Whilst the Government's volunteering infrastructure
fund sounds very encouraging for the sustainability of second
tier support to communities, there is, however, uncertainty about
what form the future support structure will take, when it will
be announced, and whether public sector funding is restricted
to specific public sector service delivery contracts. A general
understanding about who pays for support for volunteers and voluntary
sector groups, and how this might be built into funding volunteering
within the Big Society framework is vital to the future sustainability
of increased participation.
2.3 Therefore, we are disappointed that the national
strategic partnership programme is being reduced so rapidly and
finally scrapped in 2014, as this programme offers excellent support
for capacity-building, information sharing and expert consultation
to inform national policy. TimeBank has just been notified that
we are to be a casualty of the programme cuts and, as a result,
will have to dramatically scale back our activity schedule and
programme delivery. Ironically, for the past 10 years TimeBank
has been delivering the "Big Society" with government
support and it is now that we have a "big society" Government
in power that we are forced to scale back the support of our volunteers
to the most vulnerable groups in society such as mentally ill
veterans, refugees and young people.
2.4 Community Experts, such as Volunteer Centres,
are the perfect place to promote local partnerships and greater
collaboration. However, public funding is rarely available and,
if commissioned more appropriately, Volunteer Centres could help
to build on the networking that already takes place through the
brokerage and development services locally and encourage the sector
to add value to each other's activities.
2.5 Great opportunities need to encompass fitting
in to individual's lives and the priority responsibilities they
have to themselves, their health, their families and their work.
Creating a varied, appropriate, challenging, flexible, creative
suite of opportunities is about working with the voluntary and
public sectors to determine how volunteers can support the work
of not-for-profits whilst taking into consideration the barriers
to engagement. This requires a support structure that helps frontline
groups to focus on their priority tasks and builds in expert good
practice, experience and local knowledge to build the capacity
of the group to respond to the opportunity of involving volunteers.
That support structure is rapidly disappearing due to cuts in
public spending and, specifically, the dramatic cuts to the OCS
strategic partners programme.
3. The role of and capacity for the voluntary
and community sector to deliver local public services including
the appropriateness of using charitable income or volunteer labour
to subsidise costs
3.1 Big Society is a narrative, rather than being
definable.
3.2 Our sector—particularly the majority
of voluntary and community organisations that are very small and
local, are successful at reaching the hardest to reach and identifying
local community needs, lacks the resources and skills to competitively
tender. In addition, the infrastructure organisations that could
up skill these organisations to tender are disappearing under
the spending cuts regime which ignores the need to invest in existing
successfully delivering groups.
3.3 A statement, or guidance is required of what
is appropriate for the voluntary and community sector and volunteers
to deliver within traditional public services. This goes back
to our earlier point about subsidising and substituting for lost
statutory service funding.
3.4 Volunteering in the public service sector
can be about engaging service users in delivering solutions, but
should be a choice and not coerced under threat of losing a service
altogether which the community decides is crucial and should be
statutory.
3.5 The voluntary and community sector is very
good at supporting engagement by service users, and mentoring
and befriending is a complementary service that we can offer the
public sector.
3.6 Measuring impact is very difficult in the
short-term, as volunteering can have a much broader impact on
the individual, the community and the state. However, where projects
are longer term, the payment by results method may exclude the
very organisations who can provide real long term positive results
but lack the reserves and financial resources of larger or private
sector organisations.
3.7 Under-investment in the voluntary and community
sector in terms of support and funding by the public sector results
in an impoverished sector. Volunteers sometimes cover previously
paid-for roles, however, they can't be the experts you need to
deliver services properly, regularly and reliably, and for the
long term.
4. Possible problems and challenges from increased
commissioning of public service provision from the voluntary and
community sector as envisaged by the Government
4.1 There is a significant workforce issue on
moving public services to the voluntary and community sector which
needs to be addressed. This includes TUPE implications and job
substitution litigation.
4.2 The size of new contracts is increasingly
excluding local organisations, which risks a loss of local knowledge
and reach.
4.3 Volunteers also have better relationships
with local groups rather than more remote national groups, and
this fits in line with the Localism agenda.
4.4 The cash cost for bidding is prohibitive
to small and local groups, and contract and tendering law means
that ring fencing commissions that should be delivered by the
voluntary and community sector can not be supported if not through
a grant. The risk is that the private sector increasingly takes
over these commissions without having local reach and knowledge,
particularly given that the volunteer sector admits it is much
more focused on delivering activities than selling them.
4.5 The damage to the purpose, meaning and value
of the volunteering effort is enormous if the public sector requires
people to deliver services which may not be consistently delivered
through the use of volunteers. For example, a hospital taxi service
for vulnerable patients must always be staffed and a replacement
service would need to be planned in case volunteers drop out.
This provision may actually cost more money than the original
public sector managed service.
4.6 However, the cash-flow implications of public
service contracting is the major barrier for voluntary and community
sector inclusion and engagement with public service provision.
6. Governance and accountability issues arising
out of different organisational forms of social enterprises and
co-operatives; and the participation of voluntary sector and community
groups in greater public service provision
6.1 Payment by results is the biggest preventer
of participation in public service provision by the voluntary
and community sector, followed closely by the often restricted
remit by geography or mission for the organisation. This means
that the voluntary and community sector are unable to respond
to larger cross-contract multi-client commissions.
6.2 Accountability is a key concern, which could
be resolved by investment in voluntary sector infrastructure to
support informal and small groups to build capacity to be as accountable
as Government requires for contracts.
6.3 We believe the voluntary and community sector
is actually far more accountable than the private sector, and
more transparent, due to our governance structures. However, the
private sector profit agenda means it's easier to compete without
having to be so transparent for every penny spent.
6.4 There should be accountability to beneficiaries
and a transparent process to show who is benefiting from commissioning
public service provision and how. There may be doubts as to whether
beneficiaries might be cherry-picked by private sector contracts,
where the voluntary and community sector will focus on supporting
the most excluded.
6.5 Groups of local people or Community Organisers
working alone will need to be accountable which means that they
then have to rely on infrastructure or become a more formal group,
which is against the principles of the Big Society. In addition,
infrastructure and back office functions are needed to support
more spontaneous or short-term activities by local groups.
6.6 Trustees are risk-averse but shareholders
are not so, and this is a key point to understanding the advantages
and disadvantages to supporting voluntary sector engagement with
public services.
6.7 The risk of mission drift to access funding
may also undermine the principles, purpose and value of volunteering,
and there is still a big debate to be had about the use of volunteers
in Community Interest Companies and social enterprises.
March 2011
| 
