The Big Society agenda has been a political battlefield since its launch early last year. Left and right, charities and businesses, rich and poor have all lined up to support, denounce or simply shrug in confusion. In the wake of unprecedentedly severe spending cuts, the consensus has now become increasingly bleak. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) recently suggested its own action plan for ‘rescuing the Big Society’, warning of the risk that ‘the organisations at the very heart of Big Society will not survive long enough to see the vision become a reality” and suggesting urgent measures to bring the idea ‘back from the brink’. David Cameron meanwhile ran to the Guardian to hit back at the barrage of criticism, insisting this was not just another Government initiative; that ‘the big Society is here to stay’.

The problems of fundamental public awareness and intelligibility have persisted, while the level of scepticism in public discourse has increased as details of the cuts to public services and statutory funding have been confirmed over the last six months – with accusations that the Big Society agenda represents privatisation by stealth, a hobby-horse of the PM’s and an attempt to divert from the bitter pill of deficit-reduction all becoming common currency. Treated in many quarters as already moribund and a rhetorical liability, the truism has long been that the idea is all well and good but nobody knows what a ‘Big Society’ means in practice – including some Conservative ministers.

Some commentators have argued that on the contrary, it’s clear what the Big Society means, it’s the ‘how’ question that’s the problem: how to encourage volunteering in light of long working hours or civic disengagement; how to restructure the relationships between state, markets and citizenry. Yet as our latest research, conducted within nfpSynergy’s Charity Awareness Monitor (CAM)[fn]nfpSynergy, March 2011. Charity Awareness Monitor survey of 1,000 adults 16+ in Great Britain.[/fn], shows, the ‘what does it mean?’ question remains as salient as ever.

We’re all for it - but still don’t understand!

The research shows that a decent majority of 64% claim to have heard of the Big Society but that the problem of fundamental clarity remains critical. While a fifth (20%) of the nationally representative sample agreed that the Big Society idea is ‘clear and easy to understand’, a staggering 80% of those surveyed remain bemused or unsure.

That this basic issue of comprehension remains unresolved poses as an ongoing problem. Indeed, while an awareness level of almost two-thirds of the public seems positive at first glance, it nonetheless demonstrates that almost 1 in 4 people (23%) have not heard of the Big Society, with a further 13% unsure. And the fact that 4 in 5 people still find the idea unclear and hard to understand - despite it being after one of the most widely-covered political initiatives of the last year, as well as the one of the most fervently championed by the Prime Minister himself - suggests that something has gone deeply awry at the level of concept, execution or both.

Strikingly, however, research reveals a greater public positivity and receptivity to the idea than that assumed by much media commentary. When people were asked what they thought the Government’s main aims concerning the Big Society were, the most popular choice was getting ‘more people involved in volunteering’ at almost half (48%) of respondents[fn]Please note that these survey responses were prompted, not coded from spontaneousanswers.[/fn]. Next came getting voluntary organisations and charities involved in public service provision and giving more power to local communities (with 45% selecting each). Improving the quality of public services by increasing user involvement was another strong rationale picked by just under a third (30%) of respondents.

In contrast, the (arguably) more cynical notions to have found common currency in public discourse surrounding the Big Society – that it is merely a way to make the public feel better about spending cuts (26%) or a vehicle for privatisation (14%) - came noticeably lower down as explanations identified by the public. Despite its lack of clarity, therefore, the Big Society idea does appear to be primarily associated with strong social goods in the public mind, from empowering local communities to encouraging a greater charity role in public service provision. On the other hand, the findings still demonstrate that a full quarter of the public identify with the view that the Big Society is a way to appease the public for spending cuts, while another strong minority see it as a way to involve companies in public services.

No to the Big Society, yes to volunteering?

So far, this chimes with some of what we already know. Other polls have also shown over a quarter (27%) of people have never heard of the Big Society (ComRes, February 2011), and that only 24% of people claim to understand the idea fairly or very well (YouGov, February 2011). It seems clear, then, that where we find public positivity towards the agenda it is predominantly at the level of values and intent; rather than representing familiarity or confidence in the policy agenda itself.

When asked specifically about the Big Society by name, public opinion is much more divided. Many more people feel that the Government should drop the whole idea (39%) than feel that they should not (29%). And even more damningly, just 9% agree that the Government is likely to be successful in realising the aims of the Big Society, against 59% who believe it will not. This should not be mistaken for clear disapproval of the idea: when asked if they agree that the Big Society is a good idea, public opinion is split but tilts towards feeling that it is, at 39% in favour and 29% against. However, this does suggest substantial problems in the way the policy has been rolled out, explained and promoted.

What is particularly striking in the new research is the strong profile of volunteering. When we explored attitudes to the Big Society at a more general level, the highest overall agreement was found for the statement ‘The Government should promote volunteering during the economic downturn’ (58% in agreement, against only 16% who disagree). As the promotion of volunteering was also taken to be the aim of the Big Society, support for the former may go some way towards explaining why a good proportion of the public appear receptive to the idea in principle, if not practice.

Yet it is clear that a vote for volunteering is not equivalent to a vote for the Big Society. It is also not necessarily evidence of a personal commitment to volunteering among individual respondents themselves - time and resources are critical for volunteering capacity and both are in increasingly short supply in this economic climate. We know from our own data that 22% of the public report giving time to volunteer recently and that this figure remains quite constant over time at around a fifth of the population[fn]nfpSynergy, January 2011. Charity Awareness Monitor survey of 1,000 adults 16+ in Great Britain.[/fn]. While participation is strongest among older people and a substantial time commitment is also given by young people yet to enter the workforce, this is still far from the volunteer army the Prime Minister has been keen to evoke.

The fact that the research found such high support for the idea of a Government responsibility to encourage volunteering also implies an ongoing public appetite for state intervention - at least at the level of facilitation. Yet this is a role the Government has sought to downplay in relation to a (cheaper for the state) culture of informal voluntary action and general ‘neighbourliness’ as Minister for the Cabinet Office, Francis Maude recently put it.

Future research may be able to more fully unpack the interesting gap between public support for the Big Society in principle and ambivalence towards it in practice – whether it reflects ongoing uncertainty about the details, concern about local capacity and engagement, or a stronger political criticism about the way in which spending decisions are progressing. However, the more immediate question for charities may be how to harness the apparent goodwill towards volunteering culture; particularly at a time many are struggling to make ends meet and in light of Government’s failure to convince the public that its Big Society agenda offers a credible solution to the shrinking state.

Our research shows that the groups most associated with the policies are precisely those the Government has emphasised in its rhetoric. Asked who they identified as involved in Big Society policies, community groups came top at just under three-quarters (72%), closely followed by volunteer centres at two-thirds (66%) of respondents and local charities at 61%. Local authorities (46%), national charities (43%) and social enterprises (41%) were also strongly associated with the idea, while the bodies least associated with Big Society were trade unions (11%) and central government departments (20%). The idea that business might have a significant role or interest in the Big Society seemed similarly muted; with small businesses selected by 28% and large businesses by 23% of the public.

Beyond the Big Society brand

And herein lies the rub: that those groups most strongly associated with the Big Society agenda are exactly those currently facing dire funding shortfalls that many will be hard-pressed to survive. As Denise Marshall, chief executive of Eaves charity recently noted when returning her OBE in protest at the cuts laying waste to domestic violence charities: ‘It feels like there is nowhere to go to.... We have always worked on a shoestring, but now that shoestring has been cut’.

NCVO have called for the Transition Fund – designed to help medium-sized charities weather the cuts – to be extended in scope and scale. Meanwhile small and large organisations alike have become increasingly vocal regarding the catastrophic effects of cuts to the sector, with leading sector figures such as Dame Elisabeth Hoodless pointing to the lack of strategic planning around the Big Society and inherent contradictions such as the diversion of funds from existing youth volunteer programmes to the Government’s National Citizen Service.

In all, the picture looks murky for the Big Society as a flagship Conservative policy – Cameron’s much vaunted ‘passion’ in contrast to his ‘duty’ of deficit reduction. Its intelligibility and coherence in the face of public spending decisions that erode capacity for the voluntary sector while insisting it take on increased responsibility, present a real and potentially insurmountable obstacle. However for voluntary organisations and volunteering itself – that is, for the values the Big Society imperfectly attempts to capture – everything is still to play for. The question is how such groups best capitalise on the explosion of interest and support for the crucial social infrastructure they provide - while extricating themselves from both ever-dwindling state support and from close identification with what many warn has become an increasingly toxic political brand.

nfpSynergy research into the Big Society at a glance:

• Asked about the Government’s main aims concerning the Big Society, 49% think it’s about getting more people involved in volunteering, while 45%, respectively, think it’s about getting voluntary organisations and charities involved in public service provision and giving more power to local communities.
• Nonetheless, substantial minorities identify the policies as a way to help reduce the impact of spending cuts on public services (29%); a way to make the public feel better about spending cuts (26%) or a means to get companies more involved in providing public services (14%).
• Likewise, more than a media-saturated year after its formal launch, around a third of the public (36%) are still either unaware of - or unsure whether they have heard of - the Big Society idea. The vast majority (80%) still view the policy as unclear; with only 20% agreeing that ‘The “Big Society idea is clear and easy to understand’.
• Opinion is divided on whether the Big Society is a good idea, with 39% in favour, 29% against and the remaining third unsure.
• However, over a third (39%) agree that the Government should drop the whole idea, with 29% who think they should not and 32% unsure. Only 9% think the Government will be successful in achieving the aims of the Big Society, while 59% think it will not.
• 58% agree that the Government should promote volunteering during the economic downturn, while only 16% disagree.
• Community groups were most likely to be identified as involved with Big Society policies (72%), closely followed by volunteer centres (66%) and local charities (61%). Local authorities (46%), national charities (43%) and social enterprises (41%) were also strongly associated with the idea, while trade unions (11%) and central government departments (20%) were the least. Small businesses were thought to be involved by 28%, and large businesses by 23%, of the public.