Community service is often regarded as the activity of those with time on their hands with nothing to do than good works to or for, rather than with, others that require it.
There was great excitement several years ago when the Government was promoting the big Society. In the foreword to ‘Something’s got to give: the state of Britain’s voluntary and community service’ (Centre for Social Justice, December 2013), Danny Kruger wrote: ‘No government has been more energetic in its support of independent social action, of the principle that ‘society’ is ‘not the same thing as the state’, and that social problems demand social solution. Yet many of these efforts are still only beginning to germinate and in the meantime, many in the voluntary and community sector – those who have pioneered outstanding social action for decades - are struggling with constraints on their resources, high demands, ongoing battles with bureaucracy and a changing operating environment.
‘Sadly, the Government has also begun to retreat from speaking about society itself as the lotus of social change.’
It was in the initial bravura in calling for a new way of doing things and especially in the light of talking about a broken society, that the Big Society came into being. Its three components were to have been the following:
1. A reinvigoration of social action, or public service by private citizens;
2. Localism, or the devolution of power from Whitehall to communities; and
3. The ‘open public services agenda,’ i.e. the dismantling of state monopolies in health, education, welfare and elsewhere in favour of the small independent organisations which are best placed to serve their communities.
It was not a new concept as Christians and followers of other religions had been doing this work for centuries.
It was the voluntary institutions that commenced the schools, hospitals and the social insurance system that would be integrated into the welfare state. Sir William Beveridge, the architect of the system, acknowledged in his third report ‘Voluntary Action’ (1948): ‘Ceaselessly the State has extended its activity in fields in which voluntary action had has pioneered.’ He went onto state that both the welfare system and the voluntary sector should co-exist to meet each other’s needs as the latter was to undertake those things that the State ‘should not do’ or was ‘most unlikely’ to do.
One of the reasons was that the voluntary and community organisations were uniquely placed to meet particular needs in a local and targeted manner, with empathy that can be absent in officialdom, so achieving what at first appears to be impossible.
In the ‘Ties that bind’ report (Duncan O’Leary and Jo Slater, Demos, 14 January 2014), the authors recorded the complexity of those in need of assistance: ‘We found low income to be a common thread running through most of the problems faced by families, both as a cause and effect of people’s own mental and physical wellbeing and as serious strain on people’s relationships with others. Tackling multiple disadvantages, therefore, can never be left to family services in isolation. Many families find themselves swept along by broader economic currents, which reflect the number and nature of jobs available to them in local areas.
‘However, our work shows that it is just different disadvantages that can have a domino effect, with a problem in person’s life producing knock-on effects in another. Multiple disadvantage is a story of interdependence between people, not just between problems. More often than not, it is a story of relationships. In particular, families can produce a vital extra layer of resilience, helping people in ways and at times that statutory services cannot. Similarly, dysfunctional relationships with family members and others can diminish people’s capacity to flourish.
‘The best services recognise and work with this complexity. They understand that improving a child’s outcomes may require first addressing problems being experienced by parents or siblings.
‘Policy often does too little to take account of this interdependence. Some of the stories from our study raise question marks over whether government currently does enough to recognise the social and economic value of unpaid care, for example. In other respects, policies can serve to actively undermine the kind of self-help and mutual support that families engage in.’
The same report highlights that different agencies may be required to address the various needs that are faced, resulting in people being able to trust the competences of the organisation.
T
here might be a neat overlapping of requirements to the organisation’s capabilities, so the agency have to value ‘softer’ options so they are seen as being responsible and accountable to the people using their services.
In the report ‘A ‘Can-Do’ approach to community action: What role for risk, trust and confidence?’ (Allen M, Clement S and Prendergast Y, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, January 2014), the authors encourage those involved in community service to be risk aware and not risk averse as this could cause the stagnation of any progress. In their exhortation to be involved in such work, they include a number of recommendations, which includes the following:
· The risk of encouragement – trusting others: For those new to community action, the act of joining a group and attending a meeting could be a daunting experience in itself.
· The risk of conflict – trust between local groups and community politics: In most areas, activists encountered some difficulties when getting started in the locality. A range of issues made it hard to gain trust, not least the perennial problem of being seen as an ‘incomer,’ or someone who was not local to the area.
Other members of the community could also be distrustful of any new initiative, and this was magnified by existing divisions within communities.
· Cutting through red tape – dealing with the risk: While concerns related to regulation did not on the whole influence the activists’ decisions to give their time, these concerns did come into play when choosing the activities and carrying them out. An aversion to bureaucracy led to some ideas being dropped before ever being tried. Activities that were pursued involved activists developing ways to manage risk in effective and sensible ways. The choice of activity seemed to be shaped by a range of factors, such as how time-consuming it would be to stage, or whether the activity had a ‘champion’ within the group.
· Involving vulnerable members of the community: Activists encountered particular difficulties when involving children or young people, or if they wanted to support older people who could be seen as vulnerable. While they often identified a need in their localities, they were unsure of how to go about working safely with these groups. In one group, activists were unsure about the legalities of keeping young people’s contact details, and this stalled the development of an idea. Across all areas, activists were aware that working with vulnerable groups could require Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks…and befriending schemes often fell at this hurdle.
· The risk of ‘burnout’: The greatest constraint on volunteering, identified across all literature, is lack of time…As people successfully organised activities, they became a focus for organisations that attempted to recruit them to other initiatives.
· The weight of responsibility: While people may be happy to be involved, they were often wary of taking on responsibility.
· The risk of failure or disillusionment: People often choose activities because they believed they would succeed, so when things failed there was an understandable loss of momentum. In many ways, the risk of failure shaped activities – people discarded ideas with a high risk of failure, and redesigned others in order to ensure the maximum chance of success. More importantly, they often recognised the need to learn from failures and move on.
Other risks that were identified included the reputation of the organisation and the risk of ‘dependency.’
There are still instances of organisations that have a Christian ethos (such as the Salvation Army, Caring for Life, London City Mission, Street Pastors, and XLP) and once had such an ethos (e.g. Barnados). What cannot be denied is the impact of Christians on modern society, which is evidenced by the hospice movement and the commencement of the probation service amongst many other issues that have benefitted our communities.
It comes out of biblical injunctions to spread the light of the Gospel in practical ways: ‘as we have the opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.’ (Galatians 6: 10, see also 1 Timothy 6: 18) There are also instances in the Old Testament where we are urged to do good (such as Psalm 34: 14, 37: 3).
Because our Father has created all humanity, He wants us to be concerned and work for the benefit for them so that His name might be glorified.
Comments