Mean and marginalised – why we are only nibbling at the edges of altruism
The future health of our society will be significantly influenced by whether ordinary citizens demonstrate greater altruism through volunteering and philanthropy. We need such kindness to increase the resources available to meet social need but also because research suggests that a society that collectively gives more back is likely to be more cohesive and contented. The last Labour Government took various initiatives to boost giving time and money and such signs of social responsibility are central to what the Coalition Government used to refer to as the Big Society. But two recent reports show just how far we have still to go to create a culture of altruism.
There are two key headlines from a fascinating research report on giving produced by New Philanthropy Capital:
- Even among those who regularly donate money only a minority think there should be an expectation that everyone who has the means should give.
- A major impediment to giving is a lack of rigor and communication from charities on the impact of their work and thus the impact of giving.
(If I have read it correctly, the report also confirms that proportionately the rich give much less of their income than the less well-off. This fact is supressed in favour of the much less illuminating one that the rich give more in absolute terms. Presumably the authors didn’t particularly want the headline to be ‘NPC bomb shell: UK rich as tight as camel’s arse in a sandstorm’).
As I have argued in a series of posts on the care crisis in Britain, expanding society’s voluntary contribution is vital to meeting future needs as this is the only source of care which could be grown without significant drawbacks. Last week saw a substantial and well researched report from The Kings Fund on volunteering in health and social care. I say ‘well researched’ but even after all the fine words from various Governments it still turns out that getting a handle on the scale of volunteering is like trying to locate a black cat in a coal hole. Based on simple extrapolation from the last National Citizenship Survey (now replaced by a much less robust set of measures), the authors estimate that three million people regularly volunteer in the health and social care domain, which is roughly equivalent to the work force and about two thirds as many people as provide informal care to family members.
The three key points from Kings Fund document are:
- Overall, and particularly in those institutions which take it seriously, volunteering can make a significant impact on the quality and effectiveness of care, indeed in some areas volunteers add something which is unlikely to be available from paid professionals.
- Yet, in most policies, sectors and institutions there continues to be a failure to develop a strategic approach to volunteering.
- This lack of grip is particularly problematic now as the combination of health reform and the public sector spending squeeze – while making volunteering more important and possibly attractive – also poses major threats to volunteer motivation (for example, volunteers do not want to feel they are being used to fill gaps created by cuts and they are ambivalent about volunteering in the private sector). Government ministers may bang on about volunteering (perhaps in the hope of a nice ‘phone call from Downing Street) but there is little evidence of a concern for it informing their core reform agenda.
While the report’s recommendations are somewhat predictable and technocratic (more strategy, more data, more co-ordination), my eye was caught by this short section hidden away in the middle of the paper:
De-professionalisation:
The complexity of the debate about role substitution is heightened further by the fact that in some areas of care, there is a case for questioning whether professionally led services always deliver the best outcomes for service users and their communities. For example, there is increasing evidence on the effectiveness of peer support in mental health, long-term conditions such as diabetes and for promoting healthy behaviours. Some of our research participants argued that what is needed is a process of radical de-professionalisation, with a central role for volunteers…Changing the composition of the health and social care workforce in this way would be a long-term undertaking and would at times be a source of contention.
The last clause is almost certainly an under-statement, but the question hovers: can volunteering ever fulfil its potential to bring a step change to the ethos and quality of care as long as it is not only marginalised but also seen – almost by definition – as having a subordinate role and status in comparison to the contribution of paid professionals?
Greater altruism is vital and would help build better lives in a better society. But to achieve the necessary step change means profound changes in social norms (starting with the rich), a transformation in the effectiveness and candour of the third sector, and a radical departure from the bureaucratic/professional/commercial culture of our public services.
Such a manifesto poses challenges to all ideological starting points which is probably why the debate sponsored by ministers managers and third sector leaders generally stays in the safe territory of one-off initiatives and warm words.
PS The RSA is encouraging philanthropy among our own Fellows (although you don’t need to be a Fellow to give). We are acting on the advice that donors want to know where there money is going and for what purpose. If you want to know more about our student enrichment fund you can find out here.
Comments
5 Comments on Mean and marginalised – why we are only nibbling at the edges of altruism
-
Susan J Royce on
Mon, 18th Mar 2013 4:06 pm
-
Nigel on
Mon, 18th Mar 2013 5:28 pm
-
Tom Brookes FRSA on
Mon, 18th Mar 2013 7:28 pm
-
Benjamin D on
Mon, 18th Mar 2013 8:59 pm
-
David Floyd on
Wed, 20th Mar 2013 12:12 am
Interestingly, if what we want is real change we need to convince the volunteers who, nominally at least, run the third sector ie the charity trustees.
I always find it interesting that trustees only usually describe themselves as volunteers, or are so described, when issues around commitment and engagement surface. Often ‘only a volunteer’ is then raised as an excuse/defence. Changing this language may be a precondition for more radical change.
Susan (a trustee of two charities!)
To add to the discussion, I wonder if part of the issue with volunteering for ‘charities’ is the lack of clarity of what a ‘charity’ now is.
Many charities are now funded from local government contracts and I find myself asking “am I more or less likely to volunteer my time and resources for a charity who received over 90% of their income from the tax payer?” I think the answer is “somewhat less”.
Do we need a different term for those charities who rely heavily or totally on voluntary support and voluntary donations? Perhaps those organisations funded >40% from tax payers should be ‘not for profit’ organisations, while those whose income is >60% from voluntary donations should continue to be called ‘charities’.
As a footnote, I would also concur with your comment on the second class nature of volunteers vs salaried staff. I have personal experience of this having been told by a very well respected international aid charity that “we only use volunteers for menial tasks. All other work is carried out by our staff!” Then again, perhaps this is a leadership issue and not a structural issue.
Interesting questions raised though
‘Create a culture of altruism…’
The report you cite shows that people are already altruistic – the stats about volunteers as a proportion of healthcare and the number of informal volunteers are phenomenal.
The solution, it seems to me, is the creation of a political, social and economic environment which allows people to express their natural altruism more frequently (in an endeavour to reverse the trends noted in, say, the British Social Attitudes survey).
Your suggested steps are a good start, Matthew, but let’s think even bigger!
I’m about to board a flight but I’ll try to come back to this with some suggestions tomorrow.
Best, Tom
‘A major impediment to giving is a lack of rigor and communication from charities on the impact of their work and thus the impact of giving’
not read the report – but I also believe the effective state subsidy given to public schools and other stories about the charities that spend a small fraction of their income on actual charitable endeavours undermine confidence in the sector.
And with 160,000 UK charities (staggering figure) – there’s going to be a few bad apples.
Interesting stuff on de-professionalisation.
In terms of mental health services, it’s definitely true that at times the NHS ends up trying to do things that it’s not designed to do and as a result doesn’t do those things very well.
It’s also true that for the vast majority of people who experience mental health difficulties, the key factors in whether they’re able to live a fulfilling life will not be the interventions of mental health professionals.
I’m less sure whether that means ‘peer services’ – while there might be evidence for their effectiveness, there isn’t widespread agreement about what they are – can usefully replace functions that are fulfilled by mental health professionals.
Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
RSA Animate
RSA Mobile
RSA Comment- RSA Projects Blogs
RSA Bookshop
The RSA Bookshop, in partnership with Blackwell's the UK's leading academic bookseller, offers Fellows and friends an opportunity to purchase books and to explore our speakers’ ideas in greater detail. Visit the RSA Bookshop.