Friday round-up: Shine, school, summer, sloths…

Posted on by

Sunshine
Basking in the Indian Summer here in Bethnal Green: here’s to it carrying on all weekend. And, of course, what better way to prepare for the weekend than with a round-up of news frmo the world of social entrepreneurship and enterprise….

– First up, there’s a downloadable pdf of the OTS "Is social enterprise at a crossroads?" research that I posted about yesterday: check it out on their website: Social enterprise: where next?

– Way back when (May), SSE was involved as a founding partner in the Shine Unconference; one interviewer who was there on day 1 was Alex Bellinger of SmallBizPod, and you can download and listen to the podcast at Social Entrepreneurs shine at Shine; it even features an interview with yours truly, but don’t let that put you off….

– If you prefer reading to listening (or you don’t have as long a commute as me), then this Harvard Business School article, the Coming Transformation of Social Enterprise might be interesting. Coming very much from an elite business school point of view, obviously, but some provocative stuff worth browsing about the "imagination deficit" in the sector…

– On a related theme to our recent monograph, Sustainable Paths to Community Development, the Development Trusts Association and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation have been looking into the question "What role for community enterprises in tackling poverty?"

– Who are the leading entrepreneurial speakers? Find out (an opinion) here

– Andrew Mawson, author of The Social Entrepreneur, has been spreading the gospel in Australia

– Do you know how your council works? Urban Forum’s guide will tell you how….

– Some good recent Social Enterprise Ambassador posts by Daniel Heery and Chris Allwood

– Finally, I enjoyed this post by Rob Greenland about the "sloth"-like organisations working in regeneration, and the challenges of partnering with them. It might be familiar to some of you………..

Is social enterprise the solution to the credit crisis?

Posted on by

No.

Ok, so I should expand on that a little. This was one topic of conversation that came up today at the unveiling of a big bit of research commissioned by OTS on what’s needed to get social enterprise and entrepreneurship into the mainstream. The title of the presentation was "Social Enterprise at the Crossroads?" (no, not that Crossroads, although that wouldn’t be a bad thing: a social enterprise on a soap), and it looked at different audiences, their awareness, how to reach them, who are most likely to become involved etc….

Nothing massively shocking for anyone from the sector or who works in this sphere, but was interesting to see it laid out by an independent agency in a strategic and thought-through way. My only major point of disagreement was that one of the target groups (disengaged / disenfranchised young people) were kind of discounted as a potential source of new social entrepreneurs….because they didn’t have the requisite confidence (interestingly, confidence + conviction were highlighted as central to the whole thing) and skills. But of course they can gain that confidence and learn those skills. And what they do have is, often, a greater (and more personal) understanding of the problems….which the research also highlighted (those living in an area with social problems were by far the most likely to engage in setting something up…).

That aside, there was much of interest: talk of brand identity and a unifying mark, for example, seem set to dominate the autumn and winter. I’ll take it all in, digest, and try and make sense of what was a long presentation. When split into groups (to answer questions like "what is the one thing social enterprise should do?" and "what is the one thing government should do?" etc), the banking crisis came up a few times. At the idealistic end was the thought that maybe there would be a reframing of capitalism to be more "sustainable" (in all senses: i.e. including social and environmental more) from here on in. At the more pragmatic end was the thought that there were a lot of fairly well-off Lehman Brothers traders looking to do something with their lives that might have a bit more purpose: how do we get the appeal out? Although we should remember that there are secretaries, cleaners, catering staff and lots of others at such organisations who haven’t built up a war chest of cash over the intervening years….not everyone who worked there was on 6 figures.

It does feel like this time could be an opportunity for the movement as much as a challenge. Clearly, access to finance from banks, and squeezes on forms of funding (both public and private) will have an effect….but maybe there is a chance that some social entrepreneurship will prove enticing to those looking to increase their psychological wealth in line with their financial wealth, or that a slowdown will cause a bit of a stocktake (excuse share-related pun) about what is important, and about seeing friends + family, rather than getting pleasure from buying the next product or keeping up with the archetypal Jones’s. We’ll see.

Funder reporting and financial regulation

Posted on by

Ian Baker (SSE‘s Development Director) and I attended the launch of New Philanthropy Capital’s new report last week about funder reporting, entitled Turning the tables in England. It was Ian’s third report launch in 36 hours, setting some sort of unwanted sector record possibly, but was a fairly interesting (if not revelatory) event. The report, despite featuring some of the most banal photography imaginable (the black and white shot of some shelves on p.16 is a particular highlight), has some good stuff. The main finding is that the reporting costs for statutory (government) funding are 3 times higher than independent (trust and foundation  / corporate etc) funding. Not a surprise to any seasoned sector-heads, but ‘ouch’ all the same.

Their recommendations on the back of that are somewhat predictable: standard reporting where possible; funders understanding costs of reporting more (charities making this clearer more); charities should question funders’ requirements more; funders should be able to justify their requirements….and so forth. Of course, this all sounds great, but very difficult in practice. The examples given of consolidating reports were either a) different streams with one funder (Southwark Council) or b) various streams with exactly same type of funder (PCTs in London). But, for example, SSE gets funding from: local, regional and national government; corporates; housing association foundations; housing associations; trusts and foundations; individual philanthropists etc. etc. Standard reporting? Fat chance, I’m afraid. Particularly given the ‘projectization’ of our activity through this funding matrix.

There’s certainly something to be said for pushing charities to report how much it costs them to report (if you see what I mean), and there’s something to be said for exploring how existing reports might be used for other funders. But there is also the possibility that the monitoring/reporting burden is simply shifted to the funder, in that they have to look at annual reports / returns / online materials to collate their own report. And, from a taxpayer point of view especially, does it matter if the 9% is wasted at the funder end or the funded end?

It is, as Phil Hope put it at the launch event, about the ratio of cost:value, because reporting is extremely important for all funders, and rightly so, to prove the social impact of their investments. And to ensure that their funding is being used as in the original application / proposal. What I’ll take away from this is for us to think about the bare bones of a standard report which might prove the basis for other bespoke reports (and might, occasionally, prove enough on its own), and to ensure that we adequately cost our reporting. We’ve got better on this, but my gut feel is that we are probably still underestimating.

Worth reflecting, finally, on another industry where a severe lack of regulation and monitoring has caused such a financial crisis. I’m referring to the collapse of Lehman Brothers, of course, and the other banks that have been bailed or are needing to be. Towards the end of last week, I was advising an SSE Fellow about a presentation he was giving to the Corporate Responsibility representative from…..you guessed it, Lehman Brothers. We shouldn’t underestimate the impact that the financial crisis may have on this sector: either directly in the case above, or through a reduction in philanthropy, or through a complete readjustment of corporate priorities. Will CSR still be the first thing to be cut in times of trouble? And, tongue partly in cheek, will charities have to do due diligence on which corporates they seek to work with? I think the Charity Commission might want to advise them on having sufficient reserves.

A new approach to regeneration

Posted on by

So we launched the monograph Sustainable Paths to Community Development yesterday here in the Michael Young room at SSE. It was a good turnout, considering that it was a rainy Tuesday evening, with a good mix of practitioners (including some SSE students and Fellows), sector chief execs, government departments, housing agencies, philanthropists, and research-y, think tank-y types. I was particularly pleased that Greg Clark MP, the Shadow Minister for the Third Sector, was able to make it and say a few words; he contributed a particularly lucid and thought-through foreword, which is not always the case when it comes to these things, so great that he could attend. CEO Alastair Wilson introduced co-authors Charlotte and Don Young, who then gave a presentation on the report, before Greg and Alastair wrapped up.

Here’s a few photos from the evening for your delectation:

Alimonograph

Monographroom 

Charlotte_and_don_2

Gregclark1forweb

Monographgroup_2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All went well and hopefully it will give impetus to the recommendations in the report. Greg Clark said last night that this was a "groundbreaking piece of work" that "should be influential across the political spectrum". I do hope that’s the case, and that other organisations read and use the research to further their arguments, as this has implications above and beyond the work of SSE alone.

To contribute my bit to the cause, there’s an article in today’s Guardian concerning some of the central issues in the report: A real community centre, and coverage in Social Enterprise Magazine. More coverage to follow. 

SSE launches Sustainable Paths to Community Development report

Posted on by

SustainablepathsjpgSSE is launching a new report today, called Sustainable Paths to Community Development: Helping Deprived Communities to Help Themselves. It’s been authored by our chair of trustees, Charlotte Young and her husband Don, and makes a passionate and timely case for a radically different approach to tackling exclusion and regenerating deprived areas.

To boil down the report into some key points, it really argues that large, complex top-down governmental approaches to regeneration have not worked, and that providing learning and support to those creating change in communities from the bottom-up will have much more impact over the long-term.

It also looks at why government (national and local) focus on getting people to engage in the democratic process, and with political institutions, rather than actually giving them power and ownership to drive their own change. It also draws on national and international research to place the argument in a strong and coherent context.

I’ve found it a really interesting read (having proofed it several times!), and one that has far-reaching implications which stretch beyond the SSE and its work, and should interest policymakers across government (and opposition). It calls, as much as anything, for a shift of mindset: from teaching to learning, from top-down to bottom-up, from imported expertise to building capacity and (social) capital within communities and so on. As per this illustration from the report:

Assumptions

Obviously, this won’t be an easy shift; nor will it be short-term. But something radical is needed: a fresh approach to tackling exclusion and inequality that will endure and sustain. The monograph we’re publishing today doesn’t contain a panacea, but it does show how people-powered change, alongside place-based regeneration, investment in health + education and so on, can make a significant difference in reducing the ever-widening gap
 between rich and poor.

 

[Download a sneak preview exec summary SustainablePathsSummary.pdf
; see also Social Enterprise Magazine’s take on it
]