Introduction

On 13 March 1996 Thomas Hamilton entered Dunblane Primary School and shot 26 children out of a class of 28 5 year olds, killing fifteen of them (Cullen, 1996). He also fatally wounded their teacher and severely injured 3 other members of the staff at the school. Dunblane is a small picturesque Scottish town which before 13 March was known for its fine cathedral and the beautiful countryside surrounding it. It is still a place where people move to bring up their families in a safe environment and to live out their retirement in tranquillity. It is the focus for much voluntary endeavour, both organised and informal, spanning youth work, lunch clubs for the elderly and pre-school playgroups. However, the events of that Spring day have left an indelible mark, not only on the town itself but also right across Scotland and even further afield.

An inquiry into the shootings was established by both Houses of Parliament on 21 March 1996 and the completed report was presented to the Secretary of State for Scotland on 30 September 1996. This report revealed that Thomas Hamilton had been expelled from the Scout Association in 1974 on the grounds that he was an unsuitable person to act as a youth leader. In spite of this, and in the face of concerns expressed by parents and others about his suitability, he continued to be actively involved for another 22 years in 16 different boys' clubs, most of which he established and ran single-handed. The report noted that '[t]here was no system in general use for the vetting of persons who operated such clubs or for monitoring their conduct' (ibid, 11.2) and that there was nothing 'to prevent an individual declaring himself or herself a 'youth leader', renting premises and starting a youth club or some other similar kind of activity for children over 8 years of age' (ibid, 11. 4).

Five years earlier, and only a few hundred miles away in Belfast, Martin Huston was arrested for a series of sexual offences against children (SSI, 1993). He was convicted the following year of 25 charges of sexual offences against 6 young boys between 9 and 13 years of age. He had gained access to these boys through his involvement in a variety of voluntary organisations working with young people and with learning disabled adults.

His case also attracted considerable publicity and was the subject of an inquiry, which reported in December 1993. The inquiry concluded that there had been major shortcomings in the vetting procedures operated by the voluntary organisations concerned in the case, that there was a failure to share information between them and a lack of super-vision and monitoring. The main lesson to be learnt from the case, according to the inquiry, was that 'it is essential for all organisations working with children to ensure that those who offer their services in a voluntary or paid capacity are suitable persons to be in contact with children' (ibid 9.7).

Why dwell on these tragic cases? How can they be of any significance to voluntary organisations? Are they not a world away from sustained academic debate on the voluntary sector? The answer, perhaps sadly, is that these cases and the lessons learnt from their analysis offer insights into volunteering and the importance of voluntary work in the provision of services by the Third Sector. They also raise difficult questions about those buzz words of the late 1990s, namely social exclusion, active citizenship and community.

The Labour Government has enthusiastically espoused the notion of social exclusion in place of the more traditional concepts of poverty and inequality. The exclusion of millions of British citizens from mainstream economic and social life is regarded as the greatest challenge faced by the new administration (MacGregor, 1997, 261-5). This theme is taken up in the Consultation Papers on Social Exclusion published by the British Government in February 1998, where social exclusion is condemned as 'unacceptable in human terms; also wasteful, costly and [with] risks in the long term for our social cohesion and well-being' (The Scottish Office, 1998, Foreword). In Continental Europe the notion of social exclusion is not new but has been refined and extended in recent years to encompass not only political or legal restrictions (which are diminishing in importance except for immigrant groups) but also forms of exclusion which arise from social, economic and cultural deprivation (Crompton and Brown, 1994). The term derives from the French tradition of social analysis and is linked to the work of Emile Durkheim 'the idea of a society bound together by rights and obligations that reflect ... a shared moral order. Exclusion is the state of detachment from this moral order' (Walker, 1995, 103).

Thomas Hamilton bore many of the hallmarks associated with social exclusion, which have been described as 'a combination of linked problems such as unemployment, poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, high crime environments, bad health and family breakdown' (The Scottish Office, 1998, 8). Adopted by his grandparents as a small child he grew up in a harsh environment of strict discipline leaving school at 16 with no qualifications. He 'did not form any close relationship with an adult of either sex' he was 'nervous among adults' and was regarded by his neighbours as 'a very shy lonely person' (Cullen, 5.8). His social life appears to have centred on the boys' clubs which he ran for many years from 1973 until his death. Similarly Martin Huston had behavioural difficulties as a child and was sent to a residential institution for several years, he was unemployed and had a history of psychiatric illness going back over 20 years (SSI, Part 3). His involvement with several voluntary organisations, particularly the St Lazarus Organisation, which ran a cadet training programme to teach young people First Aid, was clearly a route by which he gained access to children.

This paper aims to stimulate discussion on the role of volunteering in contemporary society, the problems encountered in using volunteers to provide services, the different ways in which law and other forms of regulation seek to control voluntary work and the threats and challenges which lie ahead for the Third Sector in its continuing use of volunteers.

Valuing Volunteers

A recent study by Dekker and Van den Broek proposes 'voluntariness as the guiding principle of civil societies' (1998, 13). While volunteers are not solely the province of voluntary organisations, since they also work within the public sector and as part of informal caring, the idea of volunteering is embedded in the notion of civil society, as distinct from government regulation or family obligation.

Involvement in voluntary organisations brings with it considerable benefits, at the national, group and individual levels. While there may be differences of view about the motivations for volunteering, with economists in particular claiming that volunteers are mainly impelled by self-interest rather than altruism, (see, for instance, Becker, 1976) it is possible to identify clear signs, politically, socially and financially, that volunteering advantages society at large and benefits the individuals who take part in it (for a fuller analysis see Hedley and Davis Smith, 1992).

Financial Advantages of Volunteering

Formal volunteering in Britain (excluding the informal sector) has been estimated at a value of £25 billion (Volunteer Centre UK, 1995) with £1 6.5 billion worth of voluntary work being undertaken within the Third Sector, involving 3 million volunteers. Two thirds of general charities employ no paid staff at all (Hems and Passey, 1996). Approximately 1 in 20 people volunteer regularly to provide health and welfare services through formal arrangements (Knapp, 1996) and about 7 million are involved in running voluntary organisations without remuneration (Lynn and Davis Smith, 1991). Volunteering also has important financial spin-offs in terms of training and skills development, which may enhance the employment prospects of volunteers and produce a more effective labour force. Finally, time spent in volunteering may replace otherwise anti-social activities which are costly to society. These latter factors are certainly key components in the development in Britain of volunteering as an alternative to unemployment (DOE, 1997; Millennium Volunteers, 1997).

Political Advantages

The notion of the 'active citizen,' so enthusiastically taken up by the Labour Government in the United Kingdom, appears to dovetail with the image of the committed volunteer. Through volunteering, it is claimed, citizens become more closely involved in and more competent to deal with political matters, the political sphere has to open itself up to a broader cross-section of public views and experiences and people learn ways of social and political interaction which emphasise trust and cooperation (Gaskin and Davis Smith, 1995). Thus voluntary associations not only foster the ideas of social capital and public discourse but help to make these ideas concrete.

Social Advantages

Volunteering is regarded as having a major part to play in encouraging social integration. Those who volunteer may find themselves interacting with others from very different backgrounds and thus may come to understand the lived reality of poverty and disadvantage. Those who are marginalised or socially excluded may discover through volunteering a sense of belonging, increased self-confidence and opportunities to improve their material and social situation. 'The basic values and principles of volunteering include combating social exclusion, poverty and disadvantage and promoting full active citizenship.' (VDS, 1998) Third Sector organisations may seek to recruit those on the margins, ex-prisoners, people with mental health problems, the homeless into volunteering. Volunteering will help to integrate those on the margins and give them a sense of ownership, it is claimed. '[Voluntary] activity celebrates, rather than merely tolerates, the differences between individuals and between social and ethnic groups.' (Volunteer Centre, 1990)

Regulating Volunteering

Clearly regulation, particularly external regulation by law, becomes problematic in the face of this powerful rhetoric of volunteering as inclusionery and integrative. Surely the altruistic spirit of self-giving will be debased when limits are set to its spontaneous expression? How can the promise of social inclusion through volunteering be maintained if devices are introduced which are designed to exclude and monitor?

In the face of such concerns volunteering has been largely unregulated in the United Kingdom, at least directly (although indirect constraints imposed by funders and service users may exercise a strong influence). Most constraints have sought to prevent unsuitable people from serving as trustees and has been confined to those Third Sector agencies which are registered or recognised as charities. Such legal regulation has been implemented through the mechanism of trust law, or under statute (s. 8 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990; s.72 of the Charities Act 1993). The focus has been on financial wrongdoing or negligence so that those with criminal convictions for dishonesty, those who are bankrupt and those who have been disqualified from acting as directors of companies cannot play a role in managing a charity, whether they are paid or unpaid.

Other forms of harm which may arise from the actions of volunteers involved in service provision, such as physical harm or emotional damage, have been left to the general law to deal with. However, public anxiety about child sexual abuse, criticisms made by the recipients of volunteering endeavour about quality and consistency of service, and a perception, particularly on the part of the commercial sector when competing for contracts, that volunteering offers competitors an unfair advantage and should therefore be more strictly scrutinised all point in the direction of greater regulation. In addition, voluntary organisations themselves have been pleading the case for more controls. Few appear to doubt the importance of regulation especially in the provision of services to children and to vulnerable adults, and particularly where volunteers are likely to enjoy 'substantial unsupervised access' (Home Office, 1996; The Scottish Office, 1996). The difficulty lies in implementing effective and efficient controls while retaining the open, inclusive character of volunteering.

There are key issues about who should pay the costs of legal controls, who should have access to sensitive information, who should act as watchdog over their implementation, and whether controls should be voluntary or mandatory. While the public are quite entitled to feel concerned about unrestricted access to children and vulnerable adults being obtained through volunteering, we should also be vigilant about access to confidential material and accountability for misuse of personal data (for a fuller discussion see Hebenton and Thomas, 1994). Above all, we should consider whether the traditional notion of volunteering can withstand the onslaught of legal controls.

Controls may focus on the individual volunteer/prospective volunteer or may lay down requirements for voluntary organisations and others employing volunteers. There are a variety of forms which such controls may take including, in the case of the volunteer, restrictions on entry, probationary periods, accreditation and ongoing monitoring, involving access to and sharing of confidential information between voluntary and statutory agencies. It is striking that at present in the United Kingdom there is no general requirement for a person to disclose criminal convictions, in contrast to most other European countries. Since 1997 those convicted of certain sexual offences have been legally obliged to register any change of name or address with the police (Sex Offenders Act 1997). However, access to that register is very limited and the degree to which disclosure to other agencies, such as those in the Third Sector, may be permitted is still the subject of doubt (although some recent legal cases have given useful guidance about disclosure, for instance R. v Chief Constable for North Wales Police and Others, ex parte AB and another [I997] 1 WLR 315).

Much of the discussion about vetting has been concerned with access to data on prospective volunteers' criminal convictions. Had a criminal record check been carried out on Martin Huston it would have revealed a recent conviction for a sexual offence against a vulnerable adult (S SI, 1993). On the other hand, Thomas Hamilton had no previous convictions for any criminal wrongdoing (Cullen, 1996). Research on three pilot schemes in England designed to secure access for voluntary organisations to criminal records suggests that criminal record checks may be bureaucratic and slow and may deter some good potential volunteers from applying. 'If this wastage of volunteer applicants were to be repeated nationally, it would represent a substantial erosion of volunteer effort' the study concludes (ibid, 109).

Voluntary organisations may be required to carry out certain vetting procedures, meet minimum standards of supervision and monitoring and employ paid staff suitably qualified to meet the demands of vetting and monitoring. In Britain at present only a limited number of voluntary organisations have access to prospective volunteers' criminal records, where such voluntary work involves substantial, unsupervised access to children and where the voluntary organisation is registered with the Voluntary Organisation Consultancy Service in England and Wales or the Criminal Convictions Information Scheme in Scotland.

Under new arrangements, which have yet to be implemented, all employers, whether of paid or unpaid staff, will have access to a prospective employee's or volunteer's criminal record if they so choose (Part V of the Police Act 1997).

However, a fee will be charged for this service and the information is normally limited to 'unspent' convictions, thereby excluding certain convictions which will be wiped from the record through the passage of time (under the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974). Most significantly, there is no compulsion to obtain such material and several major voluntary organisations in the United Kingdom have indicated that they will not be requesting such data from prospective volunteers. It will be possible, once the legislation is in force, to obtain further information on subjects in certain circumstances, including where they will be working with children and elderly, sick and handicapped people. The additional information will include spent convictions and cautions. Finally, where the subjects will have substantial access to children and young people further information may be obtained from a chief officer of police. This information is not specified and it is a matter for the officer to decide what data is relevant in each case. In the case of Thomas Hamilton only this 'enhanced criminal record certificate' would have revealed anything about previous police investigations into his work with young boys.

These controls (and a further amendment to the current rules which will make it an offence for certain sex offenders to work with children) have been criticised as costly, difficult to implement without excessive bureaucracy and delay and an abuse of civil liberties. In addition, many voluntary organisations believe that they offer a spurious protection against harm, since offenders may be able to hide their criminal activities and may never come to police attention. There is also concern that an emphasis on criminal record may deflect agencies' attention away from the need for careful selection, training and monitoring procedures.

The current and proposed controls are therefore piecemeal and, according to their critics, largely ineffective. They may also, it is feared, inhibit people from volunteering who would both benefit themselves and contribute significantly to the voluntary endeavour. In particular, those on the margins may be discouraged in the face of an intrusive and demanding vetting process.

However, legal controls are not the only or, indeed, the main inhibitor discouraging the socially excluded from becoming involved in voluntary activity. Developments in the nature of volunteering itself are also playing an important role in discouraging volunteering.

Discouraging Volunteering

The notion of giving oneself without financial reward to strangers has been part of our tradition for centuries and it remains to this day embedded in many cultures, although it may take very different forms. In a world of growing complexity and sophistication it carries with it an endearing image of simplicity and directness. However, the reality of contemporary volunteering is increasingly moving away from such a clear-cut model. Some key developments are impacting strongly on the volunteer and these are having a profound influence on the future of volunteering. The developments which I particularly wish to consider further in this paper include changes in the way in which volunteers are defined, the advent of the 'contract culture' and its implications for volunteers and the growth of professionalisation in volunteering.

Defining Volunteers

In the United Kingdom volunteer is not a term which has been of great legal significance. With the exception of statutory provisions regarding social security and the law regulating the duties of charitable trustees the status of volunteer has attracted little or no attention from lawyers. Those in receipt of certain State benefits must make themselves available for work and if they are involved in organised voluntary service cannot receive more than their actual expenses and a limited amount each day (The Jobseekers Allowance Regulations 1996 (SI 1996 No. 207)). The State thereby acknowledges the value of voluntary work while seeking to ensure that it does not become a substitute for paid employment or that those using volunteers do not try and circumvent their legal responsibilities as employers.

People who sit on the boards or management committees of charities as charitable trustees are barred from receiving remuneration for their services unless that is permitted under the founding document of the charity. In England and Wales the Charity Commissioners (whose approval must be given to any amendment allowing such remuneration) have made it clear that they are reluctant to remunerate charitable trustees unless they regard remuneration as 'necessary' (Charity Commissioners, 1994). The essence of a charitable trustee, therefore, is that that person does not benefit in any financial way from his or her involvement in running the charity. The law recognises that a conflict of interest may arise where most or all of the trustees are paid for their services.

Traditionally the distinction between an employee and a volunteer was clear-cut, mainly because volunteers did not get paid but also because other indicators of employment, such as job descriptions, contractual commitment, fixed hours and line management were absent. 'A volunteer means just that. It is a word which is very often used to distinguish circumstances in which there is no consideration for a contract. One is merely taking on an obligation as a volunteer for moral, social or philanthropic purposes.' (Parmar v. Portsmouth Citizens Advice Bureau [Case No. 15030195] The most recent statutory definition for social security purposes defines volunteer as a 'person who is engaged in voluntary work, otherwise than for a close relative, where the only payment ... is in respect of any expenses reasonably incurred..in connection with the work' (Social Security (Incapacity for Work and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996 No. 3207)). However, some recent employment cases and the problems with drafting the definition of volunteer for the purposes of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 have cast doubt on the meaning of 'volunteer'.

In several cases where 'volunteers' claimed to be employees or equivalents industrial tribunals in the United Kingdom have upheld their claim, although the voluntary organisations for which they worked treated them as voluntary labour (Armitage v Relate [Case No. 43 53 6/94 1 ] Chaudri v Migrant Advisory Service [Case No. 2201678/96]. Attempts to exclude volunteers from the ambit of the national minimum wage encountered considerable difficulties. In the Parliamentary debates M Ps were quick to point out that the status of volunteer was sometimes a fluid one, with paid employees of voluntary organisations giving additional time free and some volunteers receiving more than simply expenses, often in the form of an honorarium. It has been estimated that 30 % of social welfare groups pay some of their volunteers, and that they are likely to receive well below the going rate for the job (Deakin: 1996).

New forms of volunteering, whose aims are primarily to provide employment for those without work and take people off welfare, also do not fit easily within the accepted definition of a volunteer. Two particular schemes, the New Deal partnership and Millennium Volunteers, expect to draw heavily on voluntary organisations but concern has been expressed about them by Third Sector agencies. First, while these welfare to work schemes do offer people a choice the choices are limited, which may be at odds with the common-sense notion of volunteering as freely chosen. Second, commitment may be lacking where the 'volunteers' feel compelled to opt for the volunteering option (Deakin, 1996).

It is worth noting briefly that the definition of work for the purposes of Article 48 of the EEC Treaty does not imply necessarily that the worker is paid. The real question, according to a case brought by a German national undergoing treatment in the Netherlands for drug addiction, who was engaged in retraining and rehabilitation activities, was whether his work could be regarded as 'real and effective economic activity' (Bettray v Staatssecretaris van Justitie (1989) Times, 16 June, ECJ). Using this definition many volunteers might be defined as 'workers' for the purposes of EC law.

The question 'Who is a Volunteer?' is therefore not clear-cut. Recent developments in the United Kingdom suggest that voluntary organisations may in fact be entering into legal arrangements with their so-called volunteers which amount to contracts of employment/contracts personally to execute work or labour in some cases, Such blurring of the volunteer/employee distinction is unlikely to assist in countering social exclusion in a fair and equitable way.

The Impact of the Contract Culture on Volunteering

The 1990s have witnessed major changes in the funding mechanisms for voluntary organisations, with moves away from the traditional vehicle of an open-ended grant to tightly specified, performance related contracts (Warburton and Morris, 1991). This is a reflection of the profound shift heralded in the Griffiths Report on Care in the Community (Griffiths, 1989) which turned statutory agencies from providers of health and social services into purchasers of services from others, including the voluntary sector (see Lewis, 1994). It has also led to significant changes in the nature of certain voluntary work, not of all of which are welcomed by volunteers. For instance, research on a voluntary organisation providing services to the elderly under a contract with the local authority found that voluntary managers disliked 'the new administrative requirements, the formalisation of complaints procedures and the filling in of quarterly monitoring sheets on activities' (ibid, 215-216). Further 'the contract demanded a measure of uniformity which required the skillful handling of volunteers' and '[m]any resisted the idea of changing the way they worked' (ibid) A study of community care delivery by voluntary agencies also noted that volunteers were reluctant to become involved in administrative work and that some felt that contracts made the organisation more inflexible. The authors concluded that care was needed to ensure that the volunteers were not all treated the same but that their different skills, availability and levels of commitment were acknowledged (Taylor et al, 1995,50).

In a study designed specifically to examine the impact of contracts on volunteers (Russell and Scott, 1997) the authors considered that contracts have led to an increase in the formalisation of the volunteer-voluntary organisation relationship, the level of skill and training expected of volunteers and the workload of volunteers. This in turn has had a negative impact on recruitment and has encouraged voluntary organisations to take on paid staff instead (ibid, 45).

Professionalising Volunteering

A major trend which runs in parallel with the contract culture and intersects with it is the professionalisation of volunteering. At the same time as flexibility, creativity and participatory structures are seen as integral to voluntary organisations there have been strong pressures from funders, partners and Third Sector agencies themselves to streamline volunteer recruitment, training and monitoring. This trend is not necessarily in conflict with the ethos of volunteering and it should do much to obviate public concerns about risk and the protection of vulnerable service users. Indeed, some research suggests that greater formalisation has enhanced volunteer satisfaction in 'a job well done' (Russell and Scott, 1997,52).

Nevertheless, it does create the potential for tension between 'the distinctively associational character of voluntary organisations [which] depends in part on the commitment of volunteers and the status accorded to them in respect of the democratic running of the organisation' (Lewis, 1994,217) and requirements of good practice, demanding high levels of supervision by qualified staff and a skilled volunteer group (see, for instance, Leat, 1996; Sheard, 1995; Davis Smith, 1996). Twenty years ago the Wolfenden Committee anticipated this problem in its description of voluntary effort as 'of its essence unplanned and spontaneous, and ... not necessarily of itself allocat[ing] its energies in accordance with abstract criteria of need or equity' (Wolfenden, 1978). In the survey by Russell and Scott chief officers of voluntary organisations reported that the 'level of training given to volunteers ha[d] increased significantly' (1997,42) and volunteers are much more likely to have job descriptions and be required to undergo formal review and appraisal systems. Leat also speaks of the problems which arise when professionalism leads to the separation of policymaking from service delivery, raising key issues about internal accountability (Leat, 1990).

The professionalisation of volunteering is particularly important when it is considered side-by-side with the decrease of informal networks of support. With the fragmentation of communities, it is claimed, neighbours no longer provide informal support for neighbours and even family members do not see it as part of their duty to look after vulnerable kin (Abrams, 1980). Demanding professional standards from volunteers may encourage this trend away from informal caring even further.

Volunteering: the Future

I want to conclude by discussing three possible futures for volunteering, drawing together the major themes in this paper and acknowledging the problems for volunteering posed by the 'risk' society, intent on surveillance and the eradication of risk, which seems to characterise contemporary Western democracies (Beck, 1991).

Under that fearful and suspicious gaze difference is a threat and the cosy inclusion of the 'haves' demands the exclusion of the 'have-nots'.

The first future is that 'real' volunteering becomes increasingly streamlined and professionalised. Professional qualifications in volunteering are required for most forms of voluntary work, vetting is rigorous and ongoing and performance measurement becomes crucial as the indicator of success. The pool of available volunteers shrinks but also consists of a much more homogenous group, with most volunteering as part of their employment. Employers receive tax incentives to give their employees time off to undertake voluntary work and such activity also has tax advantages for those who volunteer. Volunteering is regarded as closely bound up with paid work, part of one's civic duty, although it continues to be unwaged.

The second future sees volunteering as a way into work for the unemployed but also a form of coercion for the 'workshy'. Volunteering is no longer freely chosen but is required of the unproductive citizen in return for financial support from the State. Voluntary work is enthusiastically taken up by some, equipping them with the additional skills and experience needed to take on paid employment. For others, however, it is simply an unwelcome imposition which they neither value nor learn from. These volunteers receive minimal vetting because the work they undertake is largely mundane and does not involve interaction with service recipients. Performance monitoring for them consists mainly of time keeping and obedience to conduct rules rather than meeting targets for service delivery. Their voluntary work is a form of enforced labour which has more in common with a community service order imposed by the courts on conviction for a criminal offence than freely given service to the community.

The last future tries to deal with volunteering and social exclusion in a positive way. Lessons are learnt from looking at some successful experiments in this area. Innovations like the Social Iceberg Foundation, which aims to give homeless people opportunities for reintegration, and self-help groups, such as those developed by drug dependent people and their families, draw on members' own skills and commitment to change. They begin from the idea that everyone has something to offer other people and attempt to make that a practical reality. Volunteering in this future is freely chosen and life-enhancing, giving those on the margins a sense of self-worth and greater self-confidence. There are controls on what people can do and there is vetting and supervision of the voluntary work. However, volunteering takes place within a structure which emphasises the value of each person's contribution and encourages individuals to think about how they can best become involved in voluntary activity. In this future criminal record checks are only part of a much wider consideration which seeks to match the needs and skills of the socially excluded with the demand for voluntary services.

The challenge for the Third Sector is to combine the best features of these three futures into a workable model for volunteering in the 21st century, based on an acknowledgment of the value of voluntary action and a recognition of the ways in which volunteers can be misused for political and economic ends.

Bibliography

Abrams, P. (1980). Social Change, Social Networks and Neighbourhood Care, Social Work Service, 12-23.

Becker, G. (I 976). The Economic Approach to Human Behaviour, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Charity Commissioners (1994).Decisions of the Charity Commissioners, 2, 11-23, London, HMSO.

Crompton, R. and Brown, P. (1994). Introduction. In Brown and Crompton (eds) A New Europe? Economic Restructuring and Social Exclusion,UCL Press, London.

Cullen, W.D. (1996). The Public Inquiry into the Shootings at Dunblane Primary School on 13 March 1996, Cm 3386, The Scottish Office, Edinburgh.

Davis Smith, J. (1996). Should Volunteers be Managed? In D. Billis and M. Harris (eds) Voluntary Agencies. Challenges of Organisation and Management, Macmillan, London.

Deakin, N. (1996). Meeting the Challenge of Change: Voluntary Action into the 21st Century, Report of the Commission on the Future of the Voluntary Sector, chaired by Professor N. Deakin, NCVO, London.

Dekker, P. and van den Broek, A (1998). Civil Society in Comparative Perspective: Involvement in Voluntary Associations in North America and Western Europe. Voluntas, 9(1)11-38.

Department of Employment, (1997). The Design of the New Deal for 18-24 Year Olds, DOE, London

Gaskin, K. and Davis Smith, J. (1995). A New Civic Europe? Volunteer Centre, Berkhamsted.

Griffiths, Sir R. (1989). Caring for People- Community Care in the next decade and beyond, Cm. 849, HMSO, London.

Hebenton, B. and Thomas, T. (1993). Criminal Records: The State, citizen and the Politics of Protection, Avebury, Aldershot.

Hedley, and Davis Smith, J. (1992) Volunteering and Society. Principles and Practice, Bedford Square Press, London.

Hems, L. and Passey, A. (1996). The UK Voluntary Sector Almanac, NCVO, London.

The Home Office, (1996). On the Record.- 7he Government's Proposals for Access to Criminal Records for Employment and Related Purposes in England and Wales, Cm 3308, London, HMSO.

Knapp, M. (1996). Are Voluntary Agencies really more Effective? In D.Billis and M.Harris (eds) Voluntary Agencies. Challenges of Organisation and Management, Macmillan, London.

Leat, D. (1990). Voluntary Organisations and Accountability. In H.K.Anheier and W. Seibel (eds) The Third Sector. Comparative Studies of Non-Profit Organisations, de Gruyter, New York.

Leat, D. (I 996). Are Voluntary Organisations Accountable? In D. Billis and M. Harris (eds) Voluntary Agencies. Challenges of Organisation and Management, Macmillan, London.

Lewis, J. (1994). Voluntary Organisations in "New Partnership" with Local Authorities: the Anatomy of a Contract, Social Policy and Administration, 28(3) 206-220.

Lynn, P. and Davis Smith, J. (1991). The 1991 Survey of Voluntary Activity in the UK, Volunteer Centre, Berkhamsted.

MacGregor, S. (1997). A new deal for Britain?. In H.Jones. and S.MacGregor (eds) Social Issues and Party Politics, Routledge, London and New York.

National Council for Voluntary Organisations (1998). Voluntary Sector Involvement in the New Deal Pathfinder Areas, NCVO, London.

Russell, L. and Scott, D. (1997). Very Active Citizens? The Impact of Contracts on Volunteers, University of Manchester, Manchester.

The Scottish Office, (1996). On the Record on Scotland. A Consultation Paper, The Scottish Office, Edinburgh.

The Scottish Office, (1998).Social Exclusion in Scotland. A Consultation Paper, The Scottish Office, Edinburgh.

Sheard, J. (1995). From Lady Bountiful to Active Citizen. In J.Davis Smith et al (eds) An Introduction to the Voluntary Sector Routledge, London, 114-127.

Social Services Inspectorate (1993). An Abuse of Trust,- The Report of the Social Services Inspectorate Investigation into the Case of Martin Huston, Department of Health and Social Services, Northern Ireland Office, Belfast.

Taylor, M, Langan, J. Hoggett, P. (1995). Encouraging Diversity: Voluntary and Private Organisations in Community Care, Ashgate, Aldershot.

Unell, J. (1992). Criminal Record Checks within the Voluntary Sector: an Evaluation of the Pilot Schemes, Volunteer Centre, Berkhamsted.

Volunteer Centre, (1990). Value Base for Voluntary Action in the 1990s, Volunteer Centre, Berkhamsted.

Volunteer Centre UK, (1995). The Economic Value of Volunteering. Volunteering Research Bulletin, Volunteer Centre, Berkhamsted.

Volunteer Development Scotland, (1998). Response to the Scottish Office Consultation Paper on Social Exclusion, VDS, Stirling.

Walker, R. (1995). The Dynamics of Poverty and Social Exclusion. In G. Room (ed.) Beyond the Threshold. The Measurement and Analysis of Social Exclusion, Policy Press, Bristol.

Warburton, J. and Morris, D. (1991). Charities and the Contract Culture, 55 The Conveyancer, 419.

Wolfenden Committee (1978). The Future of Voluntary Organisations, Croom Helm, London.