John Mohan, Professor of Social Policy, explores volunteering policy in the UK and the conditions that need to be created to increase volunteering levels.
It’s impossible to dispute the contribution that voluntary effort makes to British society – some 20 million adults are actively engaged in unpaid help of various kinds, with a notional economic value in the low tens of billions. With justification, a writer for Mass Observation once suggested that “society would come to a juddering halt if all the volunteers…went on strike.” As William Beveridge said in his 1948 report on voluntary action, “the spirit of service is in our people”. Unwittingly or otherwise Keir Starmer echoed this view in calling for a society of service.
Unsurprisingly, politicians are quick to pay tribute to the alleged wider public benefits of voluntary action, and governments have likewise claimed credit for increases in volunteering rates. But what can they realistically do to cultivate and conserve the spirit of service?
A positive message about the relationship between government and the voluntary sector is also needed; too often in recent times the government has 'stuck the boot into charity'.
You might think that a sphere of social action that relies on the private, voluntary actions of individuals wouldn’t lend itself to the setting of targets but, as in so many spheres, the 1997-2010 Labour governments set targets for increasing the proportion of the population engaged in volunteering. Initial vague aspirations were soon firmed up with numerical targets (increasing voluntary sector activity, including participation, by 5%), and having a focus on specific types of activity - formal volunteering, through organisations, rather than informal volunteering (direct, interpersonal support, in communities and neighbourhoods). The former is easier to measure and looks like the kind of activity that can be moulded into supporting public services.
The post-2010 governments avoided such directive aspirations. They sought to enlist everyone in the cause of the Big Society, making indirect rhetorical statements such as ‘we could do so much more’, from a 2010 Giving Green Paper. It’s a rallying cry, which implicitly enlists the entire population, but it’s also an excuse since it disavows governmental responsibility for the wider effects of austerity and economic policies that influenced the resources available for participation.
A similar detachment can be detected in other rhetorical appeals to generate an increase in volunteering, whether this be for celebratory occasions such as the London Olympics or the Coronation (the “Big Help Out”), or in response to national crisis or public health emergency (Covid). None of these resulted in detectable long-term shifts in levels of volunteering – though at least the 2023-24 figures indicate a flatlining in comparison with previous years, so the Big Help Out may at least have held the line. Cynicism about the underlying motivations, and launching appeals in challenging circumstances, have not helped. Asking people to do more in conditions of genuine national emergency (Covid) is one thing; outwith such circumstances (the Big Society) the public need convincing that they’re not being asked to cover for the failings of governments. A positive message about the relationship between government and the voluntary sector is also needed; too often in recent times the government has ‘stuck the boot into charity’.
An alternative has been to target particular groups: who is expected to ingest the spirit of service? The young, of course, targeted with large-scale top-down programmes such as the recently-closed National Citizen Service, or the youth volunteering charity, v. Long-term effects of these on subsequent engagement in volunteering by young adults appear non-existent or negative (recent reductions in volunteering have been most acute among those aged 16-34). Despite the high visibility and (often) celebrity and elite endorsement of such programmes, they often come with overtones: as Nicholas Deakin once put it, they form part of a policy repertoire combining ‘supervised homework, national service, the cat [o’nine tails] or an avenging God’ – and zero tolerance for those who don’t engage. These measures are part of a strategy offering opportunities for “hope labour” – voluntary action undertaken by those entering the labour market in the hope (but without any guarantee) that it will give them an edge in the job market. And arguably the funding of such central initiatives would have been better dispersed more widely among existing organisations.
Policy to support voluntary action has also been formulated on the basis of the efficacy of the spirit – in other words the belief that “vitamin V” can have effects on social outcomes in the same way as a pharmaceutical intervention. The evidence for this is less strong than we might like...
Policy to support voluntary action has also been formulated on the basis of the efficacy of the spirit – in other words, the belief that “vitamin V” can have effects on social outcomes in the same way as a pharmaceutical intervention. The evidence for this is less strong than we might like – there are some positive effects on health and well-being (though not to the point that volunteering could be considered a public health intervention), some limited evidence that volunteering assists the unemployed to gain work (the local labour market is much more influential) and some marginal effects on political interest and engagement.
None of the foregoing provides a particularly strong justification for public investment in support of volunteering – it doesn’t seem to increase levels of engagement and nor does it have the beneficial effects claimed for it. If a government wanted to conserve and enhance the spirit of service, instead, it might look back at Beveridge and another influential social policy analyst, Richard Titmuss. In the writings of both men, there is an emphasis on the importance of a supportive welfare system in enabling people a basis to engage in their communities. There is similar thinking in important recent commentary on social policy which shows how economic security is crucial to enabling people to contribute to their communities. In that sense conservation and cultivation of the spirit of service is not the preserve of a specific government initiative or short-term appeal but is an outcome of a wider long-term framework for economic and social policy.
Professor Mohan explores this and more in his soon-to-be-published book, Volunteering in the United Kingdom.
Professor of Social Policy
John Mohan, Professor of Social Policy and Director of the Third Sector Research Centre (TSRC) at the University of Birmingham
