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.

I was especially interested in the report’s description of a shift away from a traditional pathway into politics to a new trend in political pathways. The ‘traditional pathway’ – usually taken by older political candidates – generally involves a long history of engagement with a political party and local-level politics. The ‘new pathway’ is generally taken by younger candidates who tend to have a university education, be accomplished and have developed relevant skills in their career, and have experience campaigning or lobbying. According to the report, this new route into politics could potentially be even more exclusive and inaccessible to under-represented groups than the traditional pathways.

We have interviewed people representing a range of ages for the Pathways through Participation project and it will be interesting to see whether we discover similar age- or generation-related shifts in terms of people’s participation more broadly (not just in politics). I have just finished reading through people’s comments on their experience of school in relation to their subsequent participation, and it seems as though young people today are being more actively encouraged to participate in their communities through things like community service programmes and the Duke of Edinburgh award than was the case for older generations. For me, this raises important questions about how ideas about participation – its value, form and function - get formed in childhood and the role that institutions like schools play in shaping people’s pathways over time.

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/

There was a conversation on Radio 4′s Thinking Allowed last week about recent research on participation. John Mohan from the Third Sector Research Centre was talking about the Centre’s use of Citizenship Survey data to identify what they are calling the ‘civic core’. This refers to the small segment (less than 10%) of the population responsible for a disproportionate level of voluntary work, charitable donations, and participation in civic groups.  

In response, professor Su Maddock questioned what gets left out of the picture when data is based solely on the Citizenship Survey. She challenged listeners to think about participation in different ways – not just in terms of traditional volunteering, which she describes as ‘doing to’ but also mutual organisations and social entreprises, which she described as ‘doing together.’  An expanded understanding of participation could mean that the ‘civic core’ is greater than what the Citizenship Survey would suggest. I was interested in the language of ‘doing to’ vs ‘doing together,’ and the questions this distinction raises about the differences between the two models.

The second story which caught my eye was a blog post in The Guardian about the launch of a new report on participation in neighbourhood websites by Networked Neighbourhoods. The study looked at participation on online forums in Brockley, East Dulwich, and Harringey. It found that these forums were seen by the residents and council representatives as largely positive channels through which residents could meet others in the neighbourhood and gain a sense of power around local decision-making, and both residents and council staff could acquire and share information. It also highlighted what many respondents found challenging about these types of sites: complaint. This raises questions about how neighbourhood website structure and site moderators can encourage meaningful debate and discussion, of which anger and discontent can be perfectly healthy parts, without letting what the report calls ‘aggressive negativity’ stiffle the exchange.

Download it for free here

The seminar presentations and the supporting publication can be downloaded here.

The next seminar, on international volunteering for young people, will be held in early December. Keep an eye on IVR’s events page for more information when it’s announced.

The research resonates with literature on volunteering and other types of participation: that many people get involved (or are more likely to become involved) because they are asked personally. The research also confirms that only a small proportion of the population get involved in local decision making and that when people do, it is often a ‘reactive’ engagement about something that they are unhappy with such as front-line services.

My recent experience of interviewing people in Enfield as part of the Pathways through Participation project agrees with this – several people have said that they are ‘not political’ and haven’t been involved in any type of civic activism…until they remember the time they contacted their MP about the traffic outside their house, or the council about proposals to cut down a favourite tree or build something nearby that they don’t want (be it a car park or, in one case, a mental hospital). This reactive involvement, the TCC report says, doesn’t correspond with many of the ‘proactive’ engagement mechanisms, which try to address broader issues, on offer in most local authorities.

To encourage and increase people’s involvement, TCC recommend that local authorities should communicate better with their residents about the opportunities for involvement, and that local authorities should target their messages so that they will be receptive to every segment of the population.

What is great about this approach is that people’s attitude, personality, values and world view are factored into the analysis – of the problem and solution. It seems sensible that whether someone is inclined to see the glass half full or half empty will affect their feelings about their local council and representatives. However, it is essentially a behaviourist approach that doesn’t factor in broader socio-economic or demographic factors, which are essential to understanding people’s behaviour and views around participation and involvement. Two books that continue to get a lot of interest – Nudge and The Spirit Level – sum up this dichotomy well for me. Both bring value to debates about citizen participation, which in light of the Big Society’s stress on community involvement, will surely remain high on many people’s agenda.

Seven projects are being rolled out in Peterborough under the umbrella of Citizen Power Peterborough.  Each project has a different focus: climate change, addiction and recovery; the arts; education and local history; social media; the creation of spaces for local debate and activism; and civic health. In different ways, these projects are exploring how people in Peterborough can live more sustainably, be more connected to one another, and more involved in making decisions that affect their city and their lives.

As Programme Head Sam McLean wrote in The Guardian earlier this month, international examples of citizen power and innovation in public service – from legislative theatre in Brazil to pledgebanking in the UK – give reason to be hopeful in times of government cuts to public service spending.

• “a small nudge can get citizens to follow through on their better intentions”
• “it is possible to get citizens to think through controversial issues in innovative ways that allow for evidence and the opinion of all to count.”

What the researchers found was that while virtually all the nudge interventions worked, the think interventions were far more challenging and less sucessful. Fuller details of the findings, which should interest and challenge policy-makers and practitioners alike, are available here.

You may also want to read Kevin Harris’ blogpost that refers to the discussion that took place following the researchers’ presentation. People invited at the roundtable to reflect on what the research findings might mean for the Big Society were: Phillip Blond (Respublica); Toby Blume (Urban Forum); Greg Clark (Minister for Decentralisation; Communities and Local Government; Sue Goss (OPM) and Matthew Taylor (RSA).