| “Does it matter at all if there is variation in the take-up of Big Society-type activities in different areas of the country? …These arguments depend on the operation of a fully functioning participative democracy…If this is not the case, decisions about the distribution of outcomes are made by a small group of people and not others, leading to soeme people/areas getting better services while others miss out.” “…at an individual level, poverty/disadvantage presents risks to participation in the Big Society. Therefore areas of concentrated poverty and disadvantage are likely to have lower levels of participation.” “Measures which focus on lifting people out of poverty, providing free support services, and preventing labour market exploitation (for example, enforcing the National Minimum Wage and raising it to a living wage), are all likely to free up capacity to participate in the Big Society.” “…special patterns of disadvantage are persistent and become more marked when inequality increases and during downturns.” “…some poor areas are particularly vulnerable to rapid decline which can inhibit/destroy community involvement.” “Evidence from families living in low income neighbourhoods over the last 10 years suggests that neighbourhood-level investment and action makes a real difference to people’s lives and to their feelings about their neighbourhoods and their propensity to get involved.” “Overall it is likely that more consideration needs to be given to specific interventions to support Big Society activities in areas where there is most risk that they won’t occur spontaneously, although these on their own are unlikely to ensure equal outcomes…In a situation where responsibility for such areas is devolved to local government, this could include prioritising direct service delivery in poorer areas, or prioritising voluntary sector grants in such areas.” | 