3. Expert policy community perspectives

In order to bridge the conceptual abstractions introduced in section 1 and the quantifications presented in section 4, we here summarise relevant ‘expert’ perspectives and insights, gleaned from long-standing and deeply experienced members of the third sector horizontal ‘policy community’ at the English national level (Kendall, Reference Kendall and Kendall2009; “horizontal” here means “cross-cutting”, whereby the policy actors in focus hold expertise in relation to issues relating to the sector as a whole, rather than confined to specific policy subfields).

In relation to volunteering, the evidence from survey data relating to individuals suggests stability. Thus, while volunteering levels had not surged in the way that the architects of the ‘Big Society’ agenda would have hoped to facilitate substitution for ‘Big Government’, at least austerity-related pressures had not lead to contraction. Our experts tended to believe that formal volunteering (i.e. activity that takes place through an organisational structure, rather than offers of help directly to individuals) had proven more durable than informal volunteering, which had been significantly undermined by ‘social recession’ (see Lim and Lawrence, Reference Lim and Laurence2015, for confirmatory evidence). But at the same time, because austerity policy implementation has lead to the rapid extension and intensification of unmet social need as the State withdrew, it could be concluded that, in relative terms, the situation had deteriorated: a significant shortfall had opened up at the national level. In contrast, the paid employment situation may have proven more responsive, at least in the short term (see Birtwistle and O'Brian, Reference Birtwistle and O'Brian2015).

A range of concerns was associated with this perception of volunteering insufficiency. The first connected with the perverse effects of the ‘Big Society’ discourse. Superficially, this orientation in public policy appeared attractive. But the realities of austerity policy resource constraints undermined this, as a matter both of ideology and implementation. In particular, the concept, at a philosophical level, was never clearly articulated and the connections between the Big Society and volunteering itself were never properly specified (House of Commons Public Administration Committee, 2011; Ishkanian and Szreter, Reference Ishkanian and Szreter2012). It was believed that this opacity could create suspicion, with potential volunteers demotivated for fear of being complicit with a political agenda to which they did not subscribe. The agenda in question involved assumptions that, through volunteering, people would be helping to deliver welfare ‘on the cheap’, letting the State ‘off the hook’ in relation to public responsibilities (see also Lindsey and Mohan, 2018: chapter 8)

Our respondents diagnosed a number of policy implementation difficulties regarding volunteers in general, in terms of specialist ‘infrastructure’ bodies (like volunteer bureaux and councils for voluntary service) but also organisations deploying volunteers much more generally. They also perceived an increasingly unstable situation linked to wider patterns of economic and intergenerational change (see Kendall et al., Reference Kendall, Mohan, Brookes and Yoon2017 for a summary of these connections). Finally, one particular volunteer role – in governance terms, that of trustees – was also recognised as a key consideration. It was claimed that organisations were often struggling with trustee recruitment, retention and support. This was thought to be partly a reflection of the general pressures discussed above but also due to the demands associated with this particular, high-level responsibility. A range of technical/legal, social and political bodies of know-how and skills were believed to be required to discharge the role effectively. But with financial and time budgets under pressure, these could be increasingly hard to develop and apply. Two particular aspects of insufficiency were emphasised: the extent to which significant numbers of trustees simply ‘didn't understand what they were meant to do’ from a legal and regulatory aspect; and the sense in which relatively few had either the means or the mentality to focus appropriately on the outcomes and impacts of their organisation's activities.

We now consider the character of the policy environment including its symbolic character, as understood by our research subjects. Unsurprisingly, the overall sentiment regarding the ongoing direction of policy change at the time of our fieldwork (2015) connected closely with the issues and evidence circulating in policy circles at the time of our enquiry. Several of our interviewees had been involved in ‘unofficial’ foundation-funded initiatives (neither funded, not formally responded to, by the Government), and we need to recognise the focus of these reviews as a key frame of reference for our research subjects. The picture painted by these independent reports occupied a mixed middle ground between the optimism of the NCVO-led formulations and the pessimism of the ‘rejectionist’ critics, as identified in section 1. A leading orchestrating and narrative-designing role had fallen to a relatively new think tank, Civil Exchange, involving three ‘Big Society’ assessments and five reports from a panel on the independence of the voluntary sector (Slocock et al., Reference Slocock, Hayes and Harker2015; Slocock with Davies, Reference Slocock and Davies2016). This series of reports, while deploying appropriate quantitative indicators, also drew on ‘softer’ evidence as well and strove to make qualitative judgements concerning the ‘climate’ for, and situation of, the voluntary sector in policy terms. The analysis was developed against the backdrop of an assumption that the ‘independence’ of the voluntary sector in terms of ‘purpose, voice and action’ was essential for the sake of the health of democracy; and that the claims of the ‘Big Society’ agenda were, in principle, worth testing (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Baring/Civil Exchange report themes

In developing this agenda, the Independence Panel uses one very evocative formulation: the threat to ‘voice’. This was, at the time, said to be exemplified by:

• • the emergence of so-called ‘gagging clauses’ in some State contracts;

• • the potential negative effects of other emerging legislation (in particular, pending Lobbying Act provisions);

• • the de novo requirement that, specifically for central government programmes, funding should not be used to support lobbying;

• • rhetorical statements suggesting charities should ‘stick to their knitting’ by both a regulatory institution (Charity Commission) board member and the (then) Civil Society Minister.

Taken together, this language and the associated institutional developments were said to constitute a ‘negative climate’, with potential for ‘self-censorship’ (see also Morris, Reference Morris2015, on ‘chilling effects’). These focal points for policy concern clearly exhibit a collective belief in the salience of what we referred to in the introduction as symbolic/climatic dimensions of the policy environment, and the potential links between austerity policies, identity and capacities to pursue and balance multi-functionality. They also suggest the relevance of recognising the leading regulatory and discursive significance of the State, in addition to its funding role.

In the body of its fifth report, the Independence Panel had gone so far as to refer to the overall situation as one of ‘potential crisis’ (Slocock with Davies, Reference Slocock and Davies2016: 9). The themes emerging from our expert interviews fitted closely with this agenda, but with varied emphases, and with one additional element: mediatization. We here briefly consider finance, the non-financial environment and media aspects in turn (see Kendall et al., Reference Kendall, Mohan, Brookes and Yoon2017, for more discussion). In relation to the financial situation, on balance most of this policy community did tend towards a ‘potential crisis’ interpretation, making strong claims concerning the overall impact for social policy charities. Language such as ‘chronic financial insecurity’, ‘massive, massive change’, ‘draconian cuts’, being ‘hammered’ and ‘being screwed’ was articulated, while referring to the ‘collapse’ of key public funding streams. This was within subfields including community development and social care, but also in relation to specific forms of finance and, in particular, funding for ‘grants’ and ‘infrastructure’. While other sources of finance, including individual giving, were acknowledged to be more resilient, it was thought to be ‘getting harder’ to raise funds elsewhere. This issue was connected by interviewees to austerity pressures on household incomes, but was understood by several to be linked also to the build up of negative reporting in the mainstream media (see below).

Concerning non-financial dimensions of the policy environment, a rather more varied picture emerged: there was a wider spectrum or range of sentiments, perhaps best portrayed overall as manifesting ‘considered concern’ rather than ‘potential crisis’. In relation to regulation, there was serious discomfort in evidence concerning some aspects of the Charity Commission's direction of travel, including its budgetary contraction, and the perceived shift towards a more combative style of leadership (see Morgan, Reference Morgan2015). But its overall legitimacy as regulator was not brought into question, and some welcomed aspects of its ‘tougher’ approach. Likewise, in relation to impressions of the overall ‘climate’, there were different degrees of concern. This was partly because some of the evidence concerning ‘threats to voice’ posed by Government was thought to be particularistic and not easy to generalise across the entire sector, and partly because some of the implicated policy measures were, in 2015, still in the process of development, with uncertain trajectories.

Adding to the picture of the co-existence of a diversity in interpretations, once issues beyond direct finance were considered, was thinking about the media. It was agreed that high-profile, controversialist and critical attention to voluntary sector issues in national newspapers was now an additional ingredient beyond the State in generating the ‘climate’. So the issue had heightened salience. But there was as yet no consensus on how this converted into substantive long-term implications for the voluntary sector with different views arranged along a spectrum from those who suspected durable damage was being done to public image at one end, to those who believed any negative effects to be essentially transitory irritants.

4. Quantification of volunteering and ‘climatic’ effects: survey evidence

As section 2 outlined, we also undertook an online survey, drawing a response from just over 1,000 English social policy charities. Of course any such study could be dismissed on the grounds that respondents would tend to indulge in special pleading and be motivated by a self-interested desire to gain resources. In contrast, because we believe these organisations tend to be significantly oriented to the public good, and possess a great deal of relevant experience and expertise, we take respondents’ needs-related claims and beliefs to be potentially both credible and well informed. Moreover, we have seen that, by comparing the characteristics of our sample respondents with administrative data holdings, our sample was broadly representative of the national picture (see Table 1, and Appendix B online). In terms of the framing of our instrumentation, following the overall formulation of the European research study of which this was part, the survey asked respondents about a range of relevant perspectives under the overall banner of ‘barriers to realising impact’, expressed as both internal and external limiting factors. However, to link this firmly to the context of austerity, we adapted the specific questions with particular reference to subjective beliefs about trends in the UK policy environment over the preceding five-year period. (Bearing in mind that the Coalition government primarily associated with austerity policies in 2015 had won political office in 2010).

What were our key results in terms of descriptive findings (see Kendall et al., Reference Kendall, Mohan and Brookes2015, for a more general overview)? First, although in excess of 40 potential limiting factors were posited (based on the pan-European research approach), just three of these dominated the responses: shortfalls in relation to volunteering; perceived financial shortfalls; and limits to public awareness of the responding organisations. Significantly, concerns about volunteering recruitment were the most prevalent of all factors. 51 per cent of respondents indicating that ‘trustee recruitment to Board’ was a serious or very serious issue, and 47 per cent indicating that ‘volunteer recruitment (other than trustees)’ was serious too. These concerns even outdistanced the most pervasive financial issue cited – the problem of local government funding, in relation to which 45 per cent specified a perceived shortfall. ‘Limited public awareness’ was invoked by 44 per cent and ‘Trust / foundation funding shortfalls’ by 43 per cent. All other categories of shortfall or barrier accounted for well below 40 per cent of responses.

Second, in the later parts of the questionnaire, respondents expressed their beliefs about what we have formulated here as a range of ‘climatic’ aspects of the context for their activities. There was evidence of significant perceptions of intensification of competitive processes in relation to fundraising and market-style relationships and practices although, in relation to the latter, even more respondents actually indicated that they were ‘not applicable’. It is important, therefore, to recognise that the reach of market-style processes into this sector should not be overstated. But certainly the most striking single finding from this element of the survey was the pervasiveness of negative sentiments revealed in relation to the ‘Big Society’ construct: only a small minority (10 per cent) experienced this agenda as ‘constructive’, while five times as many (50 per cent) disagreed. Also, the legal and regulatory aspect of organisational life was quite widely perceived to have become more onerous since 2010. On a more modest scale, but still quite extensive, were concerns about respondents’ ability to balance their roles and functions (including those associated with ‘voice’) and the extent to which needs-based planning had become more difficult during the five-year period. Figure 2 presents these descriptive results in relation to these aspects.

Figure 2. Perceptions of five year continuity and change

The next step we took was to investigate the extent to which these key austerity policy-related perceptions and beliefs were systematically related to the characteristics of organisations and their geographical positioning. Conscious of the internal diversity of the sector (Kendall and Knapp, Reference Kendall and Knapp1996; Clifford and Mohan, Reference Clifford and Mohan2016), and of a range of literature highlighting spatial variation and links between economic activity and geographically defined deprivation indices (Clifford et al., Reference Clifford, Geyne Rajme and Mohan2013; Mohan and Breeze, 2016), we wished to establish the extent to which our non-financial subjective data also manifested related patterns.

We developed logistic regression models to explore these relationships statistically. First, we looked at a key ‘non-resource input’ indicator – perceptions of volunteering shortfall – as our explanandum, collapsing the range of responses in three respects – (a) recruiting volunteers; (b) retaining trustees; and (c) recruiting trustees – into dichotomised dependent variables (strong or mild agreement that there were recruitment difficulties, versus all other responses). We then look at three measures of ‘impact on organisation's performance due to the climate of policy and politics’, again dichotomised. The choice of indicators here was prioritised by both the conceptual and qualitative considerations set out in the introduction, and the descriptive results in the survey itself. We considered organisations’ perceptions of (a) the extent of difficulty in balancing multiple objectives of service delivery as well as campaigning and community development; (b) impact of the policy climate on their ability to execute needs-based planning; (c) perception of the extent to which the ‘Big Society’ approach had helped organisations develop in the post-2010 period.

The models themselves are presented in Tables 2 and 3, and here we emphasise two overarching points. First, regarding volunteering, there were only generally weak links between policy field, age of organisation and extent of deprivation in the respondent's geographical home base. In terms of volunteers (other than trustees), organisations operating in the health field were statistically less likely to perceive difficulties in recruiting volunteers than those in other fields. However, with regard to trusteeship, organisations registered since austerity policies began to be applied in earnest (2010) and those situated in levels of deprivation in the 3^rd and 4^th quintile (with reference to the 1^st quintile as the least deprived) perceived their problems to be worse. The point about youthful organisations experiencing difficulties might reflect the ‘liability of newness’ (Stinchcombe, Reference Stinchcombe and March1965) – namely that newly-formed organisations take some time to acquire resources and develop networks on which they can draw (in this case, for trustee recruitment). However, if this were a significant problem for recently-established organisations, one would also expect it to affect other issues considered in this article but we find no consistent relationship between age of organisation and the likelihood of particular responses to the survey (other than in relation to comments about balancing service delivery and campaigning, for organisations established in the 1990s and 2000s). As to the recruitment of trustees in areas of deprivation, the suggestion that the trustee retention problem is apparently not also reproduced in the 5^th (poorest) quintile is puzzling; given spatial disparities in volunteering between communities one might expect a gradient to be evident. But perhaps the most striking overall result from the volunteer shortfall perception model is the extent to which clearer, more decisive differentials don't emerge in these relationships. Against the backdrop of the relatively high frequency of volunteer/trustee problems revealed in our descriptive summary, the best way to read these results may be as indicating the pervasiveness of the volunteer/trustee problem across the sector as a whole, in spite of its internal diversity.

Table 2. Third Sector organisations perceiving difficulties relating to non-financial resources: results from a series of logistic regression models (odds ratios) with 95% confidence interval

Note: *** p < 0.001, ** p <0.01, p*<0.05; odds ratios from logistic regression on subjective non-financial difficulty measures.

Table 3. Third sector organisations perceiving difficulties regarding operating environment: results from a series of logistic regression models (odds ratio) with 95% confidence interval

Note: *** p<0.001, ** p <0.01, p*<0.05; odds ratios from logistic regression on subjective non-financial difficulty measures.

Second, our models of ‘climatic’ effects generated rather more clearly differentiated patterns. In one crucial respect, the results match quite closely with established findings about the link between traditional third sector economic indicators and geographically based deprivation measures (Clifford et al., Reference Clifford, Geyne Rajme and Mohan2013; Mohan and Breeze, 2016): our data shows that organisations situated in the 20 per cent most disadvantaged locations were especially likely to have found balancing their functions and objectives more difficult since 2010; to have experienced the political environment as increasingly unsupportive for needs-based planning over the period; and also to disagree that the ‘Big Society’ agenda has been constructive. The analysis also shows that the one organisational characteristic systematically linked to both perceived capacity to balance multiple functions and to needs-based planning in the current policy climate is financial scale. Organisations with relatively small budgets (below £100,000) were significantly less likely to express an unfavourable view on the climate of politics and policy than the larger ones during the austerity period. In addition to size measured in financial terms, organisations operating in more than one local authority were significantly more likely to express unfavourable views on their ability to balance competing objectives, and conduct needs-based planning, compared both to locally-focused entities, and to the base category of organisations operating at least at the national scale. Needs-based planning was also perceived as a troubling issue by organisations operating within one local authority.

More research is needed to understand this pattern, but we speculate it may be linked to the higher levels of complexity that larger organisations face, combined with a possible tendency to be feel more ‘connected’ to and be more sensitive to issues framed in relation to national policy developments and the evolving agendas of central government. This in turn potentially generates feelings of great ‘exposure’ to the associated perceived negative effects when austerity policies are enacted. In relation to the challenge of balancing functions being associated more with larger organisations, respondents may be more sensitised to this challenge if it ties in with their formal organisational structure; bigger organisations are much more likely to have separate divisions, departments, units or groups of staff specialising along these lines (see Frumkin, Reference Frumkin2005; Anheier, Reference Anheier2014). By contrast, in smaller agencies, functions may generally be undifferentiated and either shared loosely by individual paid staff and/or volunteers (reflecting ‘ambiguities’, as per Billis and Glennerster, Reference Billis and Glennerster1998); or even be undertaken on a taken-for-granted basis, without reflecting on the extent of their manifestation.