Smaller Government: ‘Bigger Society’?
Submission to the Public Administration Select Committee on the Big Society agenda
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 for the deadline submission of written responses on 18 March,
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
Royal London House, 22-25 Finsbury Square, London EC2A 1DX – 020 3111 07 00 - www.timebank.org.uk
TimeBank is a ONE20 initiative. ONE20 is a company limited by guarantee registered in England and Wales no. 3695114 and a registered charity no. 1073831.
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.
1.10 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.
Royal London House, 22-25 Finsbury Square, London EC2A 1DX – 020 3111 07 00 - www.timebank.org.uk
TimeBank is a ONE20 initiative. ONE20 is a company limited by guarantee registered in England and Wales no. 3695114 and a registered charity no. 1073831.
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 ten 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.
Royal London House, 22-25 Finsbury Square, London EC2A 1DX – 020 3111 07 00 - www.timebank.org.uk
TimeBank is a ONE20 initiative. ONE20 is a company limited by guarantee registered in England and Wales no. 3695114 and a registered charity no. 1073831.
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.
Royal London House, 22-25 Finsbury Square, London EC2A 1DX – 020 3111 07 00 - www.timebank.org.uk
TimeBank is a ONE20 initiative. ONE20 is a company limited by guarantee registered in England and Wales no. 3695114 and a registered charity no. 1073831.
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.
TimeBank
16 March 2011
Royal London House, 22-25 Finsbury Square, London EC2A 1DX – 020 3111 07 00 - www.timebank.org.uk
TimeBank is a ONE20 initiative. ONE20 is a company limited by guarantee registered in England and Wales no. 3695114 and a registered charity no. 1073831.