Skip the primary navigation if you do not want to read it as the next section.
Skip the main content if you do not want to read it as the next section.
| Not had a chance to read it? Never even heard of it? The proposals in the Government’s Giving white paper are intended to create a ‘step-change’ in the giving of time and money. Jay Kennedy, DSC’s Head of Policy, rounds up the main themes. |
The Government unveiled the long-awaited Giving white paper [external link] on 23 May. Like its predecessor, the Giving green paper, the title is a bit of a misnomer.
For one thing, whilst there has been a useful process of engagement and sharing of information between the Government and the sector over the past six months about how to improve giving in this country, it isn’t going to lead to a ‘Giving Bill’ or similar legislation, as the green/white paper sequence normally does.
For another, much of what’s in the paper isn’t about giving at all really – it’s about what the paper terms ‘new models of reciprocity’; incentivising people to give, or providing something in return for doing something socially responsible. This is embodied by some of the proposals and examples which are really more about non-financial transactions – forms of barter really – than giving.
This isn’t just a semantic distinction; we would argue that viewing donations of money or time in a transactional way, rather than appealing to people’s sense of moral duty or civic responsibility, has potentially negative consequences for the idea of giving and for society as a whole, and seems oddly out of step with the vision of Big Society.
There is a blizzard of different proposals and initiatives in this paper, and we don’t sum them up all here, but we provide some top ‘hots’ and ‘nots’ (plus some ‘lukewarms’) below…
What’s Hot
Some ‘new’ money – the white paper announced a £10m Social Innovation Fund (although as one reads through the paper it’s clear it will have to stretch quite a way). ‘Challenge prizes’ will also be used to ‘reward the best solutions for a series of volunteer challenges’. Government seems to have clarified its approach somewhat since the green paper, and will act as an investor in ‘game-changing’ ideas for giving via this fund. This approach probably makes sense since government is unlikely to be driving the innovation itself, but may want to back promising ideas.
No take-up of a 5% payout rule for trusts and foundations –The OCS clearly listened to widespread feedback from the sector that forcing trusts to pay out a mandatory amount of funds each year was a bad idea – so well done to them. DSC argued that a payout rule was not properly thought through, and was unworkable and undesirable for a number of reasons (see our press release).
Giving summit – the paper announces a Giving summit ‘in the autumn’ to further progress the agenda. This is a good idea to keep up the momentum and build on what’s been done so far. It also reflects DSC’s argument that one of Government’s roles should be to ‘act as a convener’ – bringing groups of interested parties together, helping disseminate information and raising the profile of issues. Without a bill to follow the paper, there was a risk that giving could fall off the policy radar. For the sector, having set out our stalls in our various responses to the green paper, a summit should help to focus minds and continue to refine top priorities over the summer.
What’s Not
Company giving – in our view the biggest flaw in the paper is that it offers few tangible proposals about how to improve giving from business (see our press release). The paper refers to the Every Business Commits ‘programme’ (which so far consists of some general principles about corporate social responsibility over two sides of A4) and refers to ‘exploring’ some kind of ‘kitemark’ scheme for corporate giving – that could have potential but who knows. The Government appears more committed to improving payroll giving, with a ‘year-long campaign’ in the autumn. But for the most part this is giving from employees not the company. And is a campaign really going to be enough to address the low take-up of payroll giving?
Reciprocity and exchange – as we said above, we think the assumption in the paper that giving will only be increased by providing people with tangible benefits in return is misguided. At some point turning giving into an exchange means it ceases to be giving at all.
The technological shiny-shiny – the white paper continues the obsession with technology that runs through the green paper. Clearly giving must adapt to technological change, even if only to keep pace with changing donor preferences. But the revolutionary potential of technology to improve giving is overstated – especially regarding volunteering – whereas any potential negative consequences of technology are mostly unacknowledged (for example, giving through ATMs, one of the high-profile initiatives in the paper, may simply boost fundraising for larger charities with high brand recognition at the expense of smaller organisations).
Lack of data and evidence, clear outcomes, and measures of success – although Government’s role has been clarified somewhat since the green paper, a major weakness remains the lack of an overall strategy, underpinned by a robust examination of the evidence and accompanied by realistic goals and clear measures of success. The white paper does say that Government is ‘exploring opportunities to make the best use of government data to shed light on giving, and to see whether more data can be collected and made available.’ That is potentially helpful, but not about determining whether particular policy interventions or financial investments to boost giving have had an impact.
And what’s kind of lukewarm…
Education – the paper recognises the importance of educating young people in giving, and gives examples of organisations like Go Givers and Giving Nation which Government is supporting to this end. Clearly long-term change, and even maintaining current giving levels, depends on involving young people. However, the paper is silent on the future of the citizenship curriculum – surely the natural home of education about giving – which is under threat as part of the wider curriculum review.
Government as a ‘giver’ – in DSC’s response to the Giving green paper we argued that Government should ‘fundamentally and comprehensively consider its own direct role as a giver’ in terms of money, time and assets. Although sadly there is no discussion in the white paper about how Government might improve its own funding practice, some other passages indicate that our advice was taken on board. For example, there is a new proposal to explore how government websites, and their high level of traffic, could be used to facilitate giving though ‘online donation platforms’. There is also brief discussion of how government buildings could be made more accessible for use by civil society groups.
Attempts to fix the same old problems – There are brief passages linking to the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) review undertaken by the Home Office, Lord Hodgson’s review of red tape, and reiterating the Gift Aid measures announced in the Budget. The Gift Aid reforms are welcome but limited, and will not have an immediate impact. On CRB, it says ‘continuously updated CRB checks’ and a ‘reduction in coverage for the Vetting and Barring Scheme’ will be taken through in the Protection of Freedoms Bill – time will tell whether such measures, if implemented, successfully balance the need to safeguard vulnerable people with making it easier to volunteer.
This white paper really marks the end of the beginning of the Big Society giving story. Helpfully, it appears the Government will remain in listening mode, partly by using the Social Innovation Fund to respond to ideas and innovations thrown up by the sector. The Giving Summit should also prove to be another significant chapter, with Government ‘keen to engage with people to develop the agenda for the summit, and to secure widespread participation’.