The School for Social Entrepreneurs

What the expenses scandal means for social entrepreneurs

It was interesting to read today that the CEO of Barnardo's is going to publish his (and his senior management team's) expenses, on the back of the MP's expenses scandal. [NB - if you're an international / non-UK reader and this hasn't made your news, check out Wikipedia's current take (or any UK newspaper's website, frankly)] It's interesting, because it's the first I've read of the scandal having a direct impact in this sector. But there are real implications (and lessons), positive and negative, for social entrepreneurs and the broader third sector.

Firstly, it is about legitimacy, which is at the core of the social entrepreneur's journey, particularly in the earlier stages. They are not appointed to a job, nor elected to one, so have to earn (and learn) their legitimacy through their actions, through involving their community (+ stakeholders), and through learning and recognition from others. Like MPs, they are trusted to spend money and make decisions on how that money is spent, so transparency and value for money are also absolutely key. This row has only served to underline how important transparency and value for money are in the modern age (and especially the current climate); and it's shown how swiflty legitimacy can be lost through inappropriate actions.

What has also become clear from the MPs expenses row is that a set of rules are not enough to hardwire an ethical approach into being.The MPs soon realised that operating "within the rules" was not enough, and that it was also about operating in the "spirit" of those rules that was important. And, no matter how improved they are made, and how less flawed, and how much more scrutiny there is, a true change will also require a true change in the spirit of how the MPs approach their expenses. In the public and third sector alike, rules and regulations are important, as are transparency and measurement (value), but so is the spirit and motivation that drives the way in which things are done. What it boils down to, again, is that rules and regulations and legal boundaries only take you so far: it is the people, and their motivations and skills, which make it a success or a failure. This is as true in the social enterprise and charity world as in the world of politics.

Finally, it's interesting to note that, despite what Barnardo's has to do, scrutiny and accountability-wise, for its funders and regulators (eg. Charity Commission) and trustees, its CEO still identifies the need to do more. And I think what that signifies, after the collapse of trust in one set of institutions (our financial ones) and now the collapse of trust in another (the political world), is that the bar is effectively raised for all organisations in terms of transparency and honesty. But this is especially the case for organisations in the third sector, including those started and run by social entrepreneurs...where trust and legitimacy is so crucial to their work being effective and impactful.

Downing Street, Future Jobs and the realities of delivery

SSE did something unusual this morning: attended a 7.30am breakfast meeting. Not renowned as early risers, Alastair and myself nevertheless made the exception to go to 10 Downing Street. The Prime Minister, along with James Purnell, Hazel Blears, Liam Byrne and John Healey, was launching the Future Jobs Fund and, specifically, discussing how the third sector / social enterprise could contribute to it.

The Fund is, as people keep saying about the recession more generally, both an opportunity and a challenge for the sector. On the one hand, what an opportunity: if 10% of the £1bn fund can be pushed through social enterprises and charities on the ground, that could be potentially transformatory. On the other, it also requires, say, delivery of 10% of the outcomes (150,000 jobs, of which 100,000 for 18-24 year old, and of which 50,000 in the most disadvantaged areas) against fairly short-ish timelines. In the words of the mighty Adam Ant, very much time to stand and deliver.

Much of the talk round the table this morning was also about how it can be ensured that this opportunity is accessible to smaller players and, from an SSE point of view, to allow for the innovation  / risk / time that start-up job creation brings (aka new social entrepreneurs from these kinds of backgrounds / areas / age groups). We'll certainly be following up on this with other organisational partners.

Great to see the breakfast prepared and served by Hoxton Apprentice trainees (congrats to them, and especially Leon who's a fantastic advocate for their work). Also good to see so many social enterprise ambassadors (Peter Holbrook, Dai Powell, Karen Lowthrop, Claudine Reid, Penny Newman, John Bird and SSE Fellow Tokunbo Ajasa-Oluwa) round the table: it was a good mix, I think, of such credible, experienced practitioners with second tier orgs such as ourselves, Social Firms, Social Enterprise Coalition, DTA etc

What is particularly encouraging is to see government departments working together in this way: DCLG, DWP and Cabinet Office, acknowledging that social enterprise and entrepreneurship is delivering outcomes across their departments, and seeking to make a breakthrough push of acceptance, awareness and resourcing.

Social enterprise and public service delivery

Yesterday, SSE attended the Smith Institute's launch event for its new policy pamphlet, Social Enterprise for Public Service (pdf download). Good line-up, including Stephen Bubb (ACEVO, Futurebuilders), Minister for the Third Sector Kevin Brennan and his opposite number in the Conservative party Nick Hurd. Each of them, plus Paul Palmer (Cass Business School) and Tom Titherington (Network Housing Group), spoke for 5 minutes, before it was opened up to questions.

Worth mentioning that the SSE chapter in the pamphlet looks at a few questions of relevance + pertinence to social entrepreneurs: whether entrepreneurship can be commissioned and procured; how can such 'unorthodox' people work with 'orthodox' civil servants; how can they gain legitimacy + credibility when self-appointed; is measurement more important than legal structure; and how can pressure to scale and conform be avoided?

Transparency: funding tips for social entrepreneurs (and politicians)

After watching the Obama inauguration (flicking between various online video streams before ending up with the trusty BBC) earlier this week, I attended a Teach First Ambassadors event, at which SSE Fellow Tokunbo Ajasa-Oluwa was speaking. I won't eulogise Tokunbo and the work of his organisation, Catch 22: he gets enough of that these days, being a social enterprise ambassador and all.

I did, however, want to share some of his useful funding tips to the prospective social entrepreneurs / teachers and former teachers present, as there was some useful stuff. He pointed to some key areas:

- research: the criteria, the grants / investments previously given, the size of organisations they were given to (to help gauge what you should go for)

- relationships: use the "could you spare me 15 minutes of your time?" rule to get time with individuals at a funding organisation: the higher-up the better, but all staff can give you a feel for the culture / approach; nurture the relationships, and keep them up-to-date with progress; seek ways in; never submit a blind application without talking to someone

- realism: about what you will get; about what you can deliver (the old "underpromise, overdeliver" rule); about the challenges you face; about the mission-money decisions (particularly in current climate)

- transparency: (if only it began with 'R') be honest and open in your dealings with people; about your promises; and about the success (or lack of) of your projects; transparent reporting and accountability builds trust, and trust builds credibility...and credibility leads to more funding...

I'd add a couple of things to that (Tokunbo had more as well): one is don't take it personally, or think it's (necessarily) about the quality of the funding bid / project. It can be about the level of competition, very subjective trustee opinions or bad timing as much as about what you have written / your idea. The other thing is to be "always on" and don't silo fundraising into one person: everyone in the organisation can spot opportunities, build relationships and develop networks.

On the subject of transparency, worth noting that Obama emphasised it in his speech. Simultaneously, our politicians were trying to become less transparent by hiding away details of their expenses. Thanks to a great campaign co-ordinated by techie social entrepreneur Tom Steinberg and MySociety, this plan was reversed the day before it was meant to go through. Great congratulations to those campaigning, and to those who wrote to their MPs, joined groups, made calls etc. Shame it took such a campaign to make our politicians realise (as Obama does) that transparency builds trust which builds credibility.....

What the Iraq War can teach you about strategic planning

Just as optimism reigns in the US, I've been reading about arguably its darkest days of recent times in the Iraq War. Fiasco by Thomas Ricks (a US journalist on the Washington Post) details the build-up to the war, the invasion, the insurgency, and the reconstruction efforts in fascinating detail. It's not an easy read and has left me, by turns, angry, frustrated, depressed but also uplifted, inspired and amazed. So what relevance to this blog and the world of social entrepreneurs? Well, a couple of things really stood out to me:

1) The first is the emphasis the military in the US places on learning (from mistakes). That may sound a bit bizarre, given that Iraq is largely viewed as a Vietnam repeat and, at least to start with, a case study in how not to carry out a counterinsurgency. Time and again, though, senior military figures give realistic assessments of what is happening / going wrong, and highlight what needs to be done to change this: and much of this is done publicly in workshops / publications / speeches and so forth. This happens throughout the first five years of the war, and the military's ability to be honest with itself, to highlight errors (and successes) and incorporate those into its future operations has been crucial in improving (eventually) its performance there. This doesn't apply to all, of course; some of the most senior figures involved consistently made out that Iraq was in a better state than it was, and continue to delude (or contradict) themselves to this day.

2) The second was about strategic planning. Ricks argues that the failure in Iraq was primarily one of strategic planning (or the lack of therein). Firstly, there was a lack of realism (if only their goals had been SMART) and a lack of consistency: their grounds for going to war were based on a worst-case scenario (i.e. Iraq has loads of WMD, Saddam works with Al-Qaeda, the US is under threat) while their plans for the occupation / reconstruction were based on a best-case scenario (we'll be welcomed as liberators, and the country's in an alright state etc).

Secondly, there was a lack of clarity over the actual objective of the invasion: was it about finding WMDs, was it about removing Saddam, was it about regime change, was it about introducing democracy to Iraq, or to the wider Middle East? (some would add, of course, was it about oil?) and so on; and it shifted as the politics demanded it. This was hugely confusing and bewildering for the troops on the ground, because each of these goals requires different operational activity, different tactics and so on. If you are unclear about your mission, how can you decide how you are going to get there and achieve it? How can you make decisions between where you apply resources (and how many are needed)?

Thirdly, there was a lack of planning in and of itself. Phase IV (the reconstruction) didn't have an overall plan in place when people arrived in Baghdad to start, whereas Phase III (the invasion) had been planned and war-gamed to within an inch of its life. 

Fourthly, the US Army had not done its homework on insurgency and counterinsurgency as a whole (though individual commanders had knowledge of, say, Vietnam or Algeria, and applied it appropriately), nor on experiences of occupation. They only started to bring in this learning 2-3 years in, in a formalised way (via pre-Iraq training etc).

Finally, there was also confused leadership / ownership between the State Department (Rumsfeld et al) and the military in Washington, and between the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and the Army in Iraq. From Ricks' account, this caused untold problems at every level of operations.

So, lessons from the Iraq disaster?

- do your research (it may not involve Vietnam or Algeria, but is necessary)
- a plan is important (entrepreneurs are prone to action, but a thought-through plan is crucial)
- get clear on your overall objective / vision and ensure it is clear to everyone else involved
- be realistic in your planning, rather than overly pessimistic or optimistic
- be clear about leadership and autonomy over particular areas (and who has the final say over what)
- be open to learning, honest about mistakes and constantly try to improve

Not a bad checklist for a social entrepreneur, or for the new US President to insist on the next time someone suggests a military invasion.....

The Big Vote...

...was, of course, on which photos were going to win the Social Enterprise Day photo competition. Rarely has an electoral college vote been better used inside the Coalition.....

....or was it about which CAN founder gave the best speech at their 10th anniversary (well done to all at CAN by the way: particularly enjoyed the London Gay Men's Chorus singing Stand By Your Man; a fixture at all social enterprise events next year I hope?)....

OK, just kidding. Obviously, it's all about Obama today. Particularly with our next door neighbours Operation Black Vote having the biggest and best Obama party in town: what a shot in the arm for their work, as well. Amazing.

I'm off doing interviews for Ashoka UK for their second round of Fellows the next couple of days, so not much blog-time. So I'll just link to this in the interim, which was well worth being awake at 5.30am for.

- Barack Obama victory speech (17 mins / BBC website)

Monday round-up: Observer, organisations, opinion, Obama

Round-up of recent news, views, links and opinions; at the start of the week for a change....

- Interesting article by Simon Caulkin in the Observer on EAGA, a partnership that works on fuel poverty and green service: Hot prospects for a company with a conscience:

"The company could be a poster-child for post-crunch capitalism, the embodiment of Peter Drucker's definition of the socially responsible business, turning 'a social problem into economic opportunity and economic benefit, into productive capacity, into human competence, into well-paid jobs, and into wealth'."

- More on the SROI vs. social auditing brouhaha, in New Sector magazine. Although there are many similarities as well as differences of emphasis. As Jeremy Nicholls put it, the aim should be to "keep credible, keep practical"

- Good overview report of the Social Enterprise World Forum

- This is an interesting discussion (on something called Social Velocity: nice!) here on scaling and communication, focusing on the US example organisation, FORGE...

- ....which also gets a mention in this post on clear, honest communication in the field of social entrepreneurship

- Pamela Hartigan, who co-wrote The Power of Unreasonable People, is writing a 5 part blog on Harvard's Center for Public Leadership on social entrepreneurship

- Am also a fan, US-wise, of Kevin Jones, and he has an article in Stanford Social Innovation Review laying out the landscape of social capital on the back of SoCap08

- Free photocopying for charity? What's not to love?

- Can social entrepreneurs really have work-life balance and succeed? Social Enterprise Ambassador Craig Dearden-Phillips thinks not

- Back in 2004, in my previous job, TheyWorkForYou made the shortlist of an award I was running. MySociety, the organisation behind that site (and many others), recently celebrated its 5th birthday. David Wilcox has a good overview here, whilst founder Tom Steinberg looks to the future here

- We were also delighted to hear SSE Fellow Amanda Roberts on Radio Five Live Breakfast this morning, standing up to the smug-tastic Nicky Campbell about why her organisation's therapeutic services were right for the children of Lambeth; I can't find it in the 3 hours of Listen Again (!), but I can point you to her website: Bud Umbrella

- And finally, looking ahead to the big event of tomorrow which is of course.....CAN's 10th Birthday, joining us in reaching a decade in age! Congrats to all current and previous staff involved.

Oh, OK, here's a post for the Obama fans amongst you:
Barack Obama and the Spirit of Social Entrepreneurship

Enjoy the late night coverage..............

Friday round-up: capitalism, CICs, Camfed and collars

Quick pre-weekend round-up.

- I covered the Enterprising Solutions Awards earlier in the week, but there was also some good coverage in the Times which is worth checking out

- Whilst we're on awards, huge well done to former SSE Director of Learning Matthew Thomson (pictured left), who is now CEO of London Community Recycling Network. They won the Innovation award in the Third Sector Excellence Awards; congrats to all the other winners and nominees as well, including SSE witnesses and friends Craig Dearden-Phillips, Afrikids, Toby Blume and..er...Duncan Bannatyne.

- Amongst countless "we need a new form of capitalism....now is the time for social enterprise" speeches and articles (to which I will no doubt contribute at some point....), this one by Charles Leadbeater struck me as one of the more interesting/thought-through:

"For most people the next year will not feel like a search for a brave new economic model: it will be more like hand-to-hand combat to keep hold of what you have......In all likelihood we will get a mix of subdued capitalism, social capitalism and ugly capitalism, even within the same cities."

- Social Firms UK do consistent, high quality work under CEO Sally Reynolds, and this is a thoughtful piece by her about why the model is important, particularly in the current climate

- Another kick for CICs; in this case from Apprentice winner Tim Campbell.....

- Jeff Trexler is never short of strong opinions; see what you make of this post: "The social enterprise movement has yet to grasp the extent to which it is as much a product of the bubble as subprime loans and credit-default swaps--it's not just a coincidence that do-gooders started talking business when business was good"

- Great article on Camfed in the Financial Times; Camfed was started by SSE Fellow Ann Cotton.

- Harvard Business School Global Business Summit Explores Future of Capitalism might be a title to send me running away, but there's some interesting stuff in here about what is needed to foster social entrepreneurship. Interesting to see business leaders still pushing venture capital and private equity models in this context as a route to solving social problems

- Lucy Bernholz, network queen of US philanthropy, has seen the future, and it looks like this

- I must mention Social Innovation Camp, to which SSE is a Community Partner: check out the site and send in your ideas.....deadline for submissions is coming soon!

- Lots of stuff being lined up for Global Entrepreneurship / Enterprise / Make Your Mark / Unleashing Ideas etc week (slightly confused branding, methinks...)......and SSE staff and representatives will be covering as much ground as possible: particularly on the 20th November which is Social Enterprise Day (coming just behind Christmas and birthday here, of course). Check out Unleashing Ideas for a sense of what's happening around the world.

- And finally, check out this story in the Huffington Post about how a book about "Green Collar" workers reached the bestseller lists. Just try not to wince when you read the bit about how revolutionaries are being replaced by "solutionaries", which must be officially the worst thing done to the English language this year....

Cheers!

Friday round-up: Bubb, Hub, Club, and... Forces for Good

As SSE prepares to head off to Devon for its annual residential (are you ready, Totnes?), and launches in Cornwall, the rest of the world continues to go absolutely haywire....

- And where else to turn at such times than to Stephen Bubb, who was already calling for the sector to be given £500m to help it through these troubled times, and that was before we learned that a load of charities have lost millions in their Icesave accounts (up to £120m according to the Guardian);

- And if you're wondering who has all that money stacked away, why not check out the Charity Commission's new website, with its groovy pie charts and punitive red and green borders (if you submit your accounts late). A vast improvement on before, and on Guidestar.

- It's fairly rare that this world makes it in to the mainstream press (apart from when it's losing buckets of cash apparently), so good to see a bit on the BBC website about social entrepreneurs including Colin Crooks who we are big fans of here at SSE, and the Hub making it into the Telegraph (seemingly by pretending to be a gentlemen's club!)

- This is an interesting Q&A on Stanford Social Innovation Review's site with David Gergen, who's a leading pundit / activist in this sector in the US. Worth a read, even if I found myself disagreeing as much as agreeing....

- Heard of Tribes, and how 'everyone's a leader?' You will soon....

- The Social Catalyst blog asks us, "People or Structures?" and answers "both" or "neither": values....

- SSE was at the Listening to the Social Entrepreneur Event yesterday: kudos to the organisers for choosing a community-based venue, and for assembling a decent mix of practitioners (not enough!), support agencies, and academics. There was a good mix of 'classic' SE debates, but also some more thought-provoking debate as well.

- Am reading Forces for Good at the moment, and it talks about how the organisations that have really big impact have a "network mind-set" that is not controlling, competitive but recognises that (if they don';t care who takes credit), working with and supporting other organisations and being open and distributive leads to greater overall positive social impact. It's something we're passionate about here, both through our 'flat' franchise approach and through initiatives like chairing the Social Entrepreneurship Policy Group. Full review to follow, but this certainly chimed with me and experiences with organisations that have an "organisational mindset".....

- ......seems to chime with Craig Dearden-Phillips as well; here he blogs about an example of exactly that network mindset: How to build an empire without taking slaves

- Finally, as it's been one of those weeks, here's some advice and tips for avoiding information overload! Hopefully we'll be updating the blog from Devon all next week.....

Charity loses Hope in shuffle

OK, so that could be officially my final Phil Hope-related punningly-titled post. He's been promoted to take over the Social Care brief in the Department of Health (formerly run by Ivan Lewis), which will at least ensure he is still involved in working with the third sector, including social enterprise, as that all comes under that remit in the DoH. Congrats to him on the promotion.

So, who's our new minister? Step forward, Kevin Brennan, MP for Cardiff West, who's previously been at the Department for Schools, Children and Families. More biography here and here.

The other major news in the reshuffle for the sector? Probably Ed Miliband moving to take on the new energy / environment department (which can only be good news for environmentally-focused third sector orgs, surely?) and also the arrival of Liam Byrne as Minister for the Cabinet Office. I was always pretty impressed with Liam Byrne when he was at DoH and then in charge of immigration, so that bodes well for that department, within which sits the Office of the Third Sector.

Oh, and some Mandelson bloke came back, apparently. Don't know if you saw that in the papers....