Communities 1st CEO Blog

A Critical Look at the NHS Volunteer Responders Scheme and its Impact on Local Charities

 

The recent NHS Volunteer Responders (VR) social care seminar has left many of us questioning the efficacy and ethics of this top-down programme. It is certainly a subject that ignites passionate debate among local community charities and volunteer organisations. In this blog, I'd like to address some concerns surrounding the programme, particularly its impact on existing volunteer work at the grassroots level.

 

A “Top-Down, We Know Best” Approach

 

When the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) announced the extension of the NHS VR scheme, they labelled it as a "hugely successful" programme. But what metrics were used to define this success? And at what cost does this success come?

This national programme, although well-intended, often undermines the invaluable work done by local charities and volunteers. The top-down model seems to disregard existing community-led initiatives that could have been further developed with local investment.

It's disheartening to see that, despite the tireless work by local charities during the pandemic, these lessons appear to have been dismissed. In effect, the government’s approach, whether intentionally or not, undermines trust in and the efficacy of grassroots initiatives.

One feature of the VR scheme that is particularly troubling is the ‘Check in and Chat Plus’. While the aim to provide phone-based support is admirable, the decision to restrict it to six weeks to prevent dependency is misguided. Are we not in the business of responding to unmet needs for as long as they exist? This component represents a significant limitation and a misunderstanding of the complex and often long-term issues that many vulnerable people face.

 

Ignoring the Lessons from the Pandemic

 

The grassroots groups who operated effectively during the Covid-19 crisis did so without massive cash injections. They were agile, responsive, and understood their communities' nuanced needs. The NHS VR programme, however, seems to operate in a vacuum, ignoring these proven grassroots successes.

While the NHS Volunteer Responders scheme might offer some utility in a crisis, it shouldn’t come at the expense of local initiatives that have a deeper understanding of community needs. A collaborative approach that respects and builds on existing local efforts would yield more meaningful and sustainable outcomes for everyone involved.

We sincerely hope the authorities will take these considerations into account as the VR programme continues to evolve. Ignoring the capabilities and insights of grassroots organisations is not just a missed opportunity—it's a failure to deliver the best possible care and support to our communities.

 

Stephen Craker, 

Chief Executive, Communities 1st.