The School for Social Entrepreneurs

Interns, enterns and the ripple effect

One side-effect of the recession / rising unemployment might potentially be a rise in the number of graduates seeking work experience, as fewer will be going straight into work. Whether this begins to correspond to a rise in internships at different organisations will be interesting to see. Interns have been on my mind of late, since Jamie Veitch's excellent blog post over at New Start: "Interns: make tea for free, get a job (maybe)". The crux of his argument is as follows:

"It always struck me as ironic that an organisation devoted to social inclusion should perpetuate a system whereby only those with the means to work for free could gain the experience they needed to get a proper job in the sector."

I would pretty much agree with this. From an organisational point of view, though, as I commented on the post, the flipside is that if you hold rigorously to this value set (around social inclusion) you can actually lose out on fresh thinking, additional capacity etc etc. in comparison with other agencies in the field.For an organisation like SSE, with a core staff team of around 10, one person can make a substantial impact. The person who's set up the interesting Enternships site (Rajeeb Dey) clearly agrees.

We've dipped our toe in the water, as regular readers of the blog will know, with an intern-ing relationship with a college in Minnesota, St Olaf....particularly with their Center for Experiential Learning, because it shared a focus on action learning, entrepreneurship and social innovation. For the last two Januarys, we've had an intern from St Olaf (Thor and then Hannah), and I think it's been a mutually beneficial experience in terms of learning, contribution to SSE, and development (on both sides). Both utilised the university's travel fund to make it happen.

As the person managing them internally, it's been great to maintain the relationship afterwards and to continue conversations about where they are heading job and career-wise. Both have influenced the development of things back at St Olaf, and also kept in contact throughout. Thor is coming back to work for us this summer for 3 months (and we're paying him this time...), whilst Hannah is applying to work with a large US non-profit financial institution, Thrivent Financial. Both of which I'm delighted about, and happy to support with references or advice or whatever.

Are we helping perpetuate disadvantage by taking internships in this way? I don't think we are in this case, and there is also the broader point that, as Matt Stevenson-Dodd has written recently, this movement also needs to attract the high educational achievers. But we similarly can't be complacent about using processes that reinforce advantage and inequality. Perhaps there is room for a supported internship scheme, or sponsored internship bursaries, in this sector to ensure that doesn't happen.

Statistics, damn statistics...and lies

I mentioned in my review of Made to Stick (incidentally, they have a website about it here) the other day about statistics giving credibility, but often inducing glazed eyes and heavy eyelids. But, in the broader area of evaluation and measurement, they are incredibly important in this sector.

I had a great conversation with Steve Lawrence (founder of Work Ventures in Australia) at the SSE residential recently about the SSE evaluation, and how we can seek to extend and improve upon that work. You can find and download a full 100+ page copy of the report in the Outcomes and Impact section of the main website...and an exec summary version as well. One challenge we talked about was how much of the nuance and detail you lose when boiling this stuff down to headlines. A few times, Steve mentioned different things he was interested in, only for me to say that some of them were in the 100+ page version, but not the shorter exec summary; or had been in an earlier version and then cut. I'd love everyone to read that full report, as it gives such a rounded view of SSE programmes and their various outcomes. It also has more on the evaluation process, such as how we tried to provide incentives / anonymous responses (in order to get a good cross-section of participants), how we also used the process to empower SSE students and Fellows to use evaluative tools, and so forth. But, ultimately, the highlights are incredibly important organisationally because of people's time, and their need to grasp something swiftly. And simple, concise points do that. Balancing that with the need to give as full and holistic picture as possible is one challenge for those heading up evaluative work. (And, lest we forget, to improve and develop internally as an organisation from that learning).

You can see something of the same debate in the SROI vs. social auditing argument. See this exceprt from the Social Enterprise Magazine article linked to above:

"Where there are impacts which can be easily ‘financialised', like people moving off benefits into work, by all means use SROI. But there will always be impacts which are difficult to attribute reasonably in this way. In these cases how people think and feel is important and social audit methods will be more appropriate"

Not quite the 'highlights' vs. 'holistic' wrangle, I'm talking about, but it is about that same sense of crunching something down and losing something of the reality and totality of it all. But, as Craig Dearden-Phillips puts it in a typically provocative column, the sector can't rely on anecdotal evidence either:

"For years we have got away with being the sector of great anecdotes. When asked about the difference we make, we often bang on about our best-ever success or offer improbable statistics that would do a Soviet-era government proud ("our two staff provide services for 267,000 people" and so on). In a tougher climate, those who properly measure and prove impact will thrive while those who bleat that it's all too difficult will sink."

I agree with this, and make sure we introduce evaluation, impact measurement, outcomes, and all the rest of it to our students while their projects are at an early stage. So much easier to build it in at the start than try and retrospectively collect and analyse....

Having said that, the masters of the twisted statistic remain the retail sector. The current Flora Buttery advert has Gary Rhodes offering crumpets to people around the country: one with Lurpak Spreadable butter on, and one with Flora Buttery on. The whole ad is based around the fact that "more people said they preferred Flora". At the bottom of the screen (as with the classic shampoo ads), the "proof" pops up. In this case, it has 200 people who were asked, of whom 48% preferred Flora.....and 45% preferred Lurpak. With 7% having no opinion. That's 96 people for Flora, 90 for Lurpak and 14 for neither. So, yes, in a one-off exercise conducted by Flora with 200 people, 6 more out of those 200 preferred Flora to another brand. In my humble opinion, that proves absolutely nothing....do another 20 tests with the public, independently, and not conducted by a celebrity chef driving a Flora van with a crumpet on top...and then I might be swayed. (Mis)using statistics like that is why people say things like this:

"Statistics are the triumph of the quantitative method, and the quantitative method is the victory of sterility and death" (Hillaire Belloc)

and, more poetically,

"Like dreams, statistics are a form of wish fulfillment" (Jean Baudrillard)

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....
 

Estates of mind: the relationship of place & people

I finished reading Estates by Lynsey Hanley last night. I'll admit that it isn't the most alluring title, but it's been hugely interesting. I first came across the book when responding to an exchange in Society Guardian between Lynsey Hanley and Andrew Mawson (who wrote the Social Entrepreneur). In a nutshell, she felt that Mawson was claiming that his people-led approach was the key to regenerating areas, whilst she felt that, ultimately, this had to be placed in the context of government intervention and place-based changes to the physical space. My letter, in response to her response, was that grassroots social entrepreneurship was not a panacea, but also that it should not be thrown out with the bathwater...and that it was the combination between government intervention, place-based stuff AND people-powered action that would work best.

[And I'm delighted to celebrate the launches of The Hub at Kings Cross and Shine at Harehills: congratulations to all involved; more on these soon]

I did have some empathy with her words, though. And, having been raised as a good middle-class boy in various semi-detached places in suburbia, thought that it would also give me a level of insight that I wouldn't (couldn't) otherwise have. Although, as Hanley points out towards the end of the book, ultimately you can never understand unless you've lived / been raised on an estate.

It's a great book: a mix of memoir, sociology, history, politics and solution-seeking, and I warmed to her authorial voice as it went along. She's exceptionally good at drawing a vivid picture both of what it was/is like to live on an estate geographically, but also psychologically. Indeed, the central section of the book is the one where she talks of how the physical barriers (poor location, poor quality building, poor transport links, poor schooling on site, poor design) create psychological barriers in the person's mind. Or, as she puts it (borrowing from East / West Germany), it creates a "wall in the head". It was here that I found myself moved and provoked:

"To be working-class in Britain is also to have a wall in the head, and, since council housing has come to mean housing for the working class...that wall exists unbroken throughout every estate in the land"

Breaking through (or climbing) over that wall is about combating isolation, about gaining aspiration, about learning about what's possible (or even exists) from the people you know....which chimes hugely with our recent report, Sustainable Paths to Community Development which talks of the crucial need for social 'linking' capital, for the connections to different networks to be made. Contacts that are outside of the family or the estate, and that provide knowledge, information, opportunities, resources and role models. Hanley says that "Social capital is more important for people who live on class-segregated estates than for anyone else", and our experience would back that up. Otherwise, the kind of entrenchment and isolation that Hanley details in the book becomes dominant.

What the book has helped me understand, though, aside from how council housing and council estates have ended up being where they are and looking like they do (it's fascinating to trace the history through various governments right up to the recent housing associations), is the sheer difficulty of scaling the wall. Much of this, it must be said, is to do with the architecture, design, quality, siting, spacing and heights of the buildings involved; there is some evidence here of lessons learned (tenants involvement, high quality, mixed design and so on), but there is vastly more to be done. As Hanley details with passion and frustration, estates are paved with good intentions as well as concrete, but many of the slum replacements have effectively become new slums.

But a central part of scaling the wall, at least for individuals, is about personal support, development and opportunity. People who ask why we need to support people for a year, or why they need high levels of personal support, or why we mix cohorts of different backgrounds and educational qualifications should read this book. Without support, confidence, inspiration (for aspiration) and connections, it remains incredibly hard to make the change....hard, to a degree, frankly, I don't think I understand or can communicate. So here are the final words of the book from someone who does, and can:

"Breaking out of [the estate] was like breaking out of prison. For all its careful planning and proximity to the city and the country, the estate was ringed by that invisible, impenetrable force field: the wall in the head. That may say as much about the closed ranks of the working class as it does for the failures of town planning. But I know that I will never scale another wall quite so high"

Funder reporting and financial regulation

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

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:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

Giant summer round-up: wedding, website, weekly

So this blog is taking a bit of a break over the rest of August, partly because this blogger is getting married (though not quite as ethically as fellow blogger Rob Greenland did). Many links to update you on, and a hello to all the new subscribers who've joined us over recent weeks. We'll be back at the end of the month with more news and views: I'd love to hear any comments on this post about the type of things you'd like us to cover in the autumn.

- First up, the Social Enterprise Coalition have a new website. I know! They've discovered images and everything :0) More seriously, congrats to James and the team on what looks to be a good piece of work. It is a vast improvement: clearer, more vibrant, and more navigable than was the case previously. I'd have hoped for a bit more web 2.0-ness and interactivity, and that there might be a few more resources online in advance, but those are minor quibbles....and we'll be uploading on our return.

- Social Enterprise: the way forward? is a useful post on the Civitas blog about social enterprise in the health sphere (and the pros and cons / problems therein)

- Get ready to tear your hair out: three definitions of social enterprises from Venturesome.....

- Every great business is an argument; oh yes it is; oh no it isn't

- Have you got a "How can I make money?" or a "How can I save money?" mindset? And which is best in the midst of a credit crunch?

- Wonderful post from Ambassador Peter Holbrook. Well, not really from him, but from one of Sunlight's users: a genuinely moving post.

- A social entrepreneur found David Cameron's bike. Who would have thought....

- Interesting discussion of where philanthropy meets business; getting a bit hot under the collar and personal as you scroll down the board....

- Have I linked to this before? Don't know: SocialVibe

- Social Enterprise Magazine are launching a new weekly news bulletin called livewire

On that bombshell, and wishing you all a lovely summer, goodbye.

Thursday round-up: Sunlight, shares, scale, SROI

Quick round-up, as there seems to be lots coming in and lots of interest:

- Peter Holbrook has written a blog post about David Cameron launching the Tory green paper at Sunlight Development Trust, and has some interesting initial thoughts from a practitioner's point of view on its recommendations; more reaction on Bubb's blog (who's on rare form of late), here, and here.

- Paul Miller of School of Everything has written an interesting post about why their organisation is a company limited by shares and how they balance the need for start-up investment (in a silicon valley web2.0 type way) with a social mission at their heart....

- Fall-out from the ECT news continues; apparently the recycling arm is keeping its CIC structure, despite (or as well as?) being taken over by a private sector operator....will be interesting to see how that turns out. In the meantime, here's a piece in New Start about it all; as I mentioned previously, this can be seen as a positive as much as a negative, but I do think that the issue of scale is at the heart of it all

- On which subject (scale), some food for thought: The Fetishization of Scaling Up (Small is beautiful versus Big is essential....and local+local+local = global...) and a magazine/event called De-Growth

- The SROI-UK conference has spawned a network: SROI-UK is chaired by the evaluation legend Jeremy Nicholls, who we'll be doing some work with in mid-June

- DEFRA announced a big £4.6 million deal for the various third sector waste and recycling networks who have come together to form a new organisation, REconomy. Huge kudos to (former SSE Director of Learning) Matthew Thomson for masterminding the deal: word on the street is that the celebrations were substantial.....but well-deserved.

- Interesting article by Matthew Taylor of the RSA on the (independence of the) third sector and the need for accountability and transparency

- How to set up a refugee community organisation; consult this guide?

- And a brief final thought: Word of mouth is not created, it is co-created

Two big stories: ECT takeover + Tory Green paper

BREAKING NEWS. Oh yes. Two big stories, both with a 'green' slant.

The first is that the Tories have just released their green paper on what they would do to/with/for the third sector if they were in government.Launched at Sunlight Development Trust, It's the first salvo in what is intended to be a constructive and consultative dialogue between the party and the sector. I've only just downloaded it and am yet to digest (95 pages over lunch was beyond me), but our friends at Third Sector online have helpfully done so and come up with the 20 headline pledges.

Of particular relevance to this world:

"•    Creating a network of social enterprise zones to provide incentives for social investment in deprived communities

•    Setting up a Social Investment Bank as a wholesaler of 'patient capital' to a wide range of social investment institutions

•    Creating a powerful 'Office for Civil Society' at the heart of government to fight for the interests of charities, social enterprises, co-operatives and community groups"

Looks interesting, pretty well-thought through and pretty sector-friendly, even if a fair bit of it has been announced one way or another in the past. The OCS replacing the OTS would seem to indicate that NCVO's advocacy of 'civil society' as a concept has fallen on receptive ears. More soon after several tube commute reads.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second big story is that ECT Group, widely viewed and lauded as one of the leading social enterprises in the movement (and certainly one of the largest) has had the recycling part of its business taken over by May Gurney, a private firm. Their press release includes the following:

"ECT Recycling - part of the ECT Group with 1,100 employees - has been acquired by May Gurney, one of the UK’s most successful maintenance and support services companies and listed on the London stock market (AIM).

First and foremost, it’s ‘business as usual’ at ECT Recycling - the current strong management team will remain in place, led by Stephen Sears, and the focus will remain on delivering service quality for its customers and its customers’ customers – members of the public.

For some time, ECT Recycling had been exploring ways to secure its future and to build upon its successful business formula in delivering municipal waste services to local authorities.

Stephen Sears, who has led the development of ECT since 1980 said: “ECT has been looking for a partner for our recycling and waste management business with a good reputation in the local authority market place and with the commercial muscle to help us to secure bigger contracts. This will allow us to deliver our social and environmental objectives as well as the financial results that are essential to continued success." 

Which leaves the ECT Group back to its original core business: the CT of community transport, having sold its various other businesses (railways, health care etc.). A few questions fall out of this, of course. Not least that ECT Recycling was a CIC, so is this the first CIC to be taken over? (and how does that work re. asset lock etc.?) Is this a strategic move separating out the two businesses, or in response to more fundamental problems? And if ECT generally needed to find a bigger partner (with "more commercial muscle") to secure bigger contracts, what does that mean for procurement/commissioning for all the other third sector / social enterprises out there? (many of whom are significantly smaller).

New Start magazine rang me this morning to comment, and I kept it largely generic (because I don't know enough about ECT's business / governance etc; see q's above) but did say that we shouldn't overreact as a sector or movement. More of this will happen over the coming years, hopefully in both directions, as mainstream business is influenced as well as threatened by ethical and mission-led competitors.