The authors of the report highlight a number of recommendations to double the size of the  ‘civic core’  – the small proportion of the population (currently estimated at 30%) accounting for most of the activity taking place, whether volunteering, charitable giving or civic participation…which seems really very ambitious considering that the statistics, over last decade or so, regarding these activities have remained largely static or have decreased.

The recommendations include: stop pointless consultation; introduce the Community Allowance; engage constructively and directly with cuts campaigns to create on-going engagement platforms; and introduce a right to try in Localism Bill.

The report is available for download here. It has been published with the intention of gathering feedback from civil society leaders and members of the public. This feedback will be compiled in a final version of the report that will be launched at the Conservative Party’s Autumn conference.

Social networks are emerging from our research as critical to shaping individuals and the resources and opportunities they have to participate. The RSA’s latest paper has some thought provoking findings that link very closely in places to our work.

‘Power Lines’ is based on an analysis of social networks in New Cross Gate in south London. A selection of the key findings included:

• ‘Those with fewer local connections in general were more likely to be isolated from local influence’;
• ‘Being retired, unemployed, and living in certain areas, all made it more likely that people would be disconnected from local influence’;
• ‘Even within the relatively small area [there was] considerable variation. Some areas had much denser social networks than others’;
• ‘Poorly connected areas are characterised by a few very well connected individuals, and many poorly connected people. Well-connected neighbourhoods are composed of individuals who have similar amounts of connections as others’;
• ‘Community networks are resilient when they have numerous connections both internally and externally’.

The report’s overarching argument is that the government’s current approach to the Big Society is focused too much on ‘citizen-led service delivery’ and not enough on ‘utilising and building people’s social networks’. These social networks – the authors argue – ‘largely determine our ability to create change and influence decisions that affect us’.

They suggest that participation is often defined too narrowly, focusing on ‘so-called “active” citizens’, who are regularly engaged in public participation and are often regarded as the ‘vision of what it is to be empowered and to have influence’.  Rather, the authors argue that in order to increase individuals’ access to local power, the focus ‘must first be on fostering overall social connections and neighbourliness’.

This argument, I feel, fits well with both the approach of our research and our findings. It suggests that rather than focusing on trying to increase participation in narrowly defined activities, we must take a step back and look from the perspective of individuals at the factors and forces that shape participation as a whole, of which social networks are a key part. Then, by focusing on building these resources and opportunities, we can begin to empower citizens to feel able to participate – if and where they wish to – and to feel that their involvement will make a difference.

The report shows that while last year’s political events increased the public’s interest in politics to a record 58%, there was no matching rise in political or civic activity. It also shows that despite people expressing more interest in how things work locally than in politics in general, only one in 10 people say they will ‘definitely’ spend some time doing some form of voluntary work at some point in the next couple of years. Overwhelmingly, motivation to volunteer and get involved seems to be rooted in a sense of personal self-interest. People are more likely to get involved in their local community ‘if I felt strongly about an issue’ (40%), ‘if it was relevant to me’ (33%), ‘if I had more time’ (28%), and ‘if it affected my street’ (25%).

These findings are commented as follows by Ruth Fox, Director of the Hansard Society’s Parliament and Government programme, and co-author of the report:

‘The momentous events surrounding the election and its aftermath has left people feeling more interested in and knowledgeable about politics. But they have not been roused to get more involved in it – the majority prefer to remain spectators. Even at the local community level only one in 10 say they are certain to volunteer. People say they are interested in being more engaged locally but on the whole are not willing to actually commit to activities. They are not very altruistic. It’s self-interest that motivates them to action: when an issue affects them or their community in a personal way.

This raises interesting questions for the development of the Big Society. A clear focus on the local and the personal is where the Big Society has the greatest chance of succeeding. The concept needs to avoid political associations, focus on the local and personal, and emphasise ‘community’ rather than ‘Society’. Given that the public are less knowledgeable about how things work locally than they are nationally a strategy to address this knowledge deficit is also needed.’

The report highlights that if community groups are to be involved, policies to engage people in community action need to be informed by a more sophisticated understanding of how and why community organisations operate. It notes that people primarily take part in community action for very personal reasons rather than from a sense of civic duty, and questions whether this can be co-opted to deliver particular policy objectives. Voluntary action for many is about social needs, ‘fun’, doing something different to the ‘day job’ or taking action about something that directly affects them.

The report also finds that there were major concerns among organisations involved in this activity that the Big Society agenda would create greater inequalities, by favouring communities with the resources to engage. The research identifies a need for policy to be informed by a much stronger analysis of power relations within and between communities and the state. Where government has been successful at directly motivating people to act, anger has also played a major role as the anti-Iraq war demonstrations or the more recent demonstrations against increased tuition fees show.

A 4-page summary of the report is available here.

In the first I argued that the most effective and appropriate way for government to encourage participation will only be worked out through experimentation, discussion and learning. I believe that Pathways through Participation will make an important contribution towards this process by informing our understanding of how and why people participate in their local communities and beyond, what makes them get active and express their views, what connects their involvements, and what keeps them from participating.

In the second I explore pledgebanking as a way of encouraging participation, looking specifically at the example of Barnet Council’s recently launched Pledgebank. I give a number of reasons I’m attracted to the idea, but also pose some questions and risks.

Have a read and let me know what you think by posting a comment.

Major policy proposals in the paper include:

• A £50million Community First Fund to invest in local savings schemes that pay out small grants well into the future in the most deprived areas. It will match contributions from local donors to encourage more giving. 
• A £10million Volunteer Match Fund to double the benefit of private donations to voluntary projects.
• Harnessing new technology. Including working with mobile phone companies to encourage charitable phone applications. Also talking to banks about donations through ATMs and widening access for people to make small charitable donations when paying for goods by cards.
• Encouraging a new focus reciprocal giving with ideas like setting up an ebay style online community where people can trade time.
• A government review of the relationship between financial incentives and giving.
• Support to encourage charitable giving in schools.

The paper is available to download on the Cabinet Office website along with a number of think-pieces from external contributors covering a wide range of topics as the role of venture philanthropy and how to make better use of technology. Contributors include Stephen Howard (Business in the Community), David Halpern (Institute for Government) and Alan Hatton-Yeo (Beth Johnson Foundation).

Interestingly, the paper highlights that “people frequently cite lack of time, information and bureaucracy as obstacles to giving their time”, but recognises that “while removing these barriers to participation is necessary, it is not sufficient to bring about a step-change in the culture of giving time. Many people give time because they want to help, but there are also specific motivations which differ from person to person, and recognising this diversity is important”. This really resonates with some of the key messages in our literature review ‘Understanding participation’ and more recently in our short report ‘Strengthening participation: Learning from participants’.

On the subject of removing barriers, decentralisation minister Greg Clark launched, just before Christmas, a ‘barrier busting’ service “to help volunteers, community groups and social enterprises overcome bureaucracy and get things done in their neighbourhood”. Definitely one to watch…

Much of the discussion and workshop dialogue was relevant to the work the Pathways through Participation project is exploring. Mike Locke, Director of Public Affairs for Volunteering England raised important questions regarding participation and life stages; do new citizenship programmes lead to lifelong participatory habits? Will changes in older people’s lifestyles and work patterns affect individual participation? The nebulous concept of volunteering was a recurring talking point throughout; is helping a neighbour to clear snow ‘volunteering’? Is engaging in decision making mechanisms a form of ‘volunteering’? Does one form of volunteering lead to another? All key issues the Pathways project is grappling with.

Tom Leftwich, policy advisor for the Office for Civil Society outlined the government’s take on participation in the Big Society. He spoke of the importance of engaging young adults with programmes such as the National Citizen Service for 16 year olds, and how essential it is to explore the barriers to participation such as bureaucracy and red tape, and remove such blocks. On the Wednesday I spoke to delegates from Siegen and Lille about the Pathways through Participation project and the barriers to participation. I was fascinated to hear how similar barriers and blocks tend to be beyond the UK. However it was interesting to hear about the importance of ‘project based’ participation particularly in Siegen in Germany. A local community development, for example the laying of a new football pitch, can often become a real hub for participation, bringing together local residents and which can lead to progressive individual participation (e.g. laying the pitch, playing on the pitch, coaching on the pitch). I was struck by how natural it is for people to participate, especially in rural Germany where there might be less amenities and leisure activities. Children grow up surrounded by participants and a sense of mutual-aid, and it becomes a social norm as they grow into their adult life. I was told of the saying in some German areas, “everyone here has started a club”.

To find out more about the European Year of Volunteering, including individual stories and a campaign toolbox, visit http://europa.eu/volunteering/

Download it for free here

I facilitated a workshop later in the day on ’Ways, means and consequences of community research’ along with Fleur Bragalia from the Salvation Army and Ceri Davies from Brighton Unviersity – download the presentation for more info:  ARVAC AGM_111110_final