Katie Schmuecker: Why the big society needs to find more fairness.

DAVID Cameron’s Government made fairness its middle name by choosing to call its programme for government “Freedom, Fairness, Responsibility”.

His Big Society policy agenda has emerged as a major part of the programme for government, and while it has been much maligned by many, at heart it contains and important and powerful aspiration: to empower individuals and communities and encourage greater social responsibility.

But a question that has lingered around the Big Society is whether it will deliver “fairness”. The immediate response from many readers may be to say life isn’t fair, so how can we expect the Big Society to be fair! That may be true, but given the Government has set out its stall to deliver fairness, this seems an appropriate measure by which to assess the Big Society. And we find a number of causes for concern.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

First, the Big Society seeks to transfer power and responsibility from the state to individuals and communities, who will run local services such as swimming pools and libraries, and care for communal spaces like parks. But not all communities are equally ready to take on such responsibility.

Living up to this vision requires individuals and communities to have available time and appropriate skills, and these are not evenly distributed. While many deprived neighbourhoods match their better off counterparts in terms of the aspiration to improve their area, the capacity to make aspiration reality is not always there. As a result, it is likely that some of our most disadvantaged communities will lose out.

Second, community and voluntary organisations in some areas are more reliant on public sector funding compared to others. This is a precarious situation to be in as deep cuts to public sector budgets are implemented.

In Yorkshire, 39 per cent of organisations receive at least some of their funding from the public sector, compared to 33 per cent in the South East. The figure rises to 42 and 43 per cent respectively in the North West and North East.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Indeed, the league table for parts of the country where voluntary organisations are most reliant on public sector funding reads like an inverse of the league table for the places with the most vibrant economies: where the private sector is weaker, the voluntary sector is more reliant on the public sector for funding.

This is particularly troubling given the Big Society’s focus on urging businesses and individuals to give more to charitable activities – this doesn’t just mean money, it can include giving time or skills too. But at the end of the day, money does matter.

While we often refer to “voluntary organisations”, in reality many organisations are not run solely on voluntary effort, and they need paid professionals and staff to support and manage volunteers and run efficient and effective organisations.

This means organisations in poorer parts of the country are facing a double whammy. Not only are they more likely to be affected by public sector spending cuts, they are operating in areas where there is less potential for the gap to be filled by the private sector or wealthy individuals through philanthropy.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

While philanthropy is a great thing, and it should be encouraged, an over-reliance on philanthropy to fund the work of voluntary and charitable organisations will produce uneven results. Somewhere like London can call on the large number of profitable companies headquartered there to make their contribution, alongside higher earners. To give this some perspective, last year in London 40 wealthy individuals made donations of £1m or more, which is more than all of the other eight regions of England combined.

So what can be done to ensure the Big Society produces fairer results?

The Government must recognise that we are not starting with a level playing field. Some individuals, communities and areas of the country are better equipped to respond quickly to the opportunities offered by the Big Society. Those areas where capacity is weaker must be the focus for government attention to ensure they do not get left further behind.

This does not mean the Government doing things for people in these areas, but it does mean investing what public money is available in building capacity where need is greatest. Action is also needed in areas with a weak business base, where revenue from giving is less likely to be sufficient to support the Big Society as public funding reduces.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Here the Government should actively encourage greater giving by establishing a strongly branded local community fund – a “Wakefield Fund” or a “Bradford Fund”, for example – which local businesses and individuals could donate to, with the funds distributed to local charitable and community groups.

To incentivise greater giving where it is most needed, the Government should pledge to match donations to the fund for a fixed period. This pledge should only be made for priority areas where the capacity to give is weaker. This would help to encourage more giving in areas that need it most.

Without interventions like these, some areas will be left behind, and the Big Society will not be a fair society.