why unpaid carers struggle so much to be heard...

I think I've figured out why it's so difficult for the views and experiences of unpaid carers to be accepted by policy makers and government.

Along with a few million other people in the UK, I'm an unpaid carer - and I'm also self-employed; juggling earning a living alongside meeting the support needs of several immediate family members.

Over the last few years, I've been trying to wave a flag for those of us like me - because we're the only type of unpaid carer not currently recognised in law or policy (which means there's no support for us). This lack of support is also a problem for everyone else, because it means that our respective businesses are all under-performing: in the wider economy there's over £10Billion of lost/deferred job creation, investment, exporting, etc that isn't happening every year, because we're trying to figure how to support ourselves in reconciling these competing roles on our own.

A key way in which I've been able to have some small initial successes in attracting interest to the approaching 1million people / unpaid carers / small business owners who are in this circumstance is through research and data - without which, policy makers and membership bodies can't justify investing the time to investigate these issues more.

But recently, a comment by one of Directors at the Centre for Local Economic Strategies (CLES) gave me reason to go back to basics with this - I'd referenced in conversation that most unpaid carers are just as likely to be men as they are women (in contrast to the typical general perception that it's usually women who take on caring roles). They challenged this by referencing the latest national census return, which CLES use as a baseline for all their policy work, as showing that it's actually predominately women who are unpaid carers. 

So I went back to the original source materials and realised that all the national government, health, policy, and support bodies are all working to a different understanding of who we are as unpaid carers.

It's shocking and depressing in equal measure - they all have different data about who unpaid carers are, and are using to base their support to us on. Is it any wonder then, that there's so much confusion about us, and why it's so hard for our voices to be heard? Because without a common agreement on how many of us are men, women, or other, each public body or agency can easily dismiss the research of others', on the basis that the starting point of identifying and understanding who carers are at such a fundamental level is so different to their own.

Can you see the confusion in the above chart?

• The government census shows a roughly 60/40 split in gender - but this survey was done in a global pandemic, and there's been questions subsequently raised by others about the validity of this finding, because of how the question on the census from was worded which likely led to many people not identifying themselves as carers when actually they are;
• Another government source (the DWP's family resources survey) has a different split at 66/33;
• x2 national public health sources (the national GP patients survey, and a national NHS survey) both have a big difference between them in how they've identified the gender split of unpaid carers;
• and the research by national bodies are who specifically created to understand and support carers have a notably different split again, at 50/50.

And this initial basic question of gender is also excluding people who don't identify along such binary f/m lines. 

So - if all the government bodies and statutory health services can't agree on such a simple basic starting point of 'what's the gender of unpaid carers?', then is it any wonder why carers are so mis-understood when it comes to us trying to share our experiences, or lobby for changes that would see us getting closer to being afforded the same recognitions as everyone who doesn't have caring responsibilities?

As for me - I've always generally aligned with the maxim "nothing about us without us". In this instance, that means I'm currently more trusting of data from carer support bodies, rather than distant civil servants whose own internal governmental departments and bodies can't agree on how far we may be made up of more than one gender than the other.

I'd like to apologise to any business trying to get a loan

I recently made an open and public apology to all my fellow freelancers, here on my blog - and I'd like to now extend this remorse to any business or enterprise that's thinking about raising investment (taking on a loan of any type) in their future. 

I was recently invited to meet with policy team at Bank of England, based on their interest in my various works over the last 3 decades in managing enterprise loan funds; researching changing trends affecting how businesses experience raising finance for growth; and ongoing dialogues with several national social investment bodies. And this isn't the first time - I'd previously contributed to their initial research into the financing of social enterprises back in 2003. 

This invitation seemed a good opportunity to help directly inform (and maybe influence?) how the body that all the lenders and investors ultimately check-in with in some way, reviewed it's current understanding and positions - because I know that from most of my conversations with enterprises of all types, that many of the current lending processes to them are increasingly mis-aligned with the changing world we find ourselves in. As a result, businesses are increasingly struggling to grow or sustain themselves because lenders aren't keeping up.

However, as an unpaid carer, I had to decline the invitation. Although I offered to meet by zoom, or enter in an email dialogue, because the ongoing caring responsibilities that I manage my business around meant I wasn't physically able to travel across the county to meet with them in person (as per the invitation), they simply said "sorry you can't join us". And that was it.

So to all business out there who may be thinking about taking on loans or investment of some kind, and at whatever stage of your journey you may be at, I'm sorry I wasn't able to represent you in a way that could have helped accessing future funds a little easier, when I otherwise might have had a clear opportunity to.

why cowbells, 3-year olds, and punching bags are a better way to create social enterprise policy

"We need to get more experimental with creating national policy" - is the encouraging takeaway I took from my recently being part of the global Social Enterprise World Forum Policy Forum event.

Showcasing a range of insights and experiences from around the world, the Forum offered a rare opportunity for people within all parts of the wider social enterprise ecosystem (from start-up social entrepreneurs, to global policy managers in the UN), who wouldn't normally be able to meet each other to question, challenge, encourage, and inspire in ways that don't usually happen.

It was also far from what some might have expected in terms of how research was shared, ideas provoked, and people engaged, as the title of this blog post suggests!

Listening to the debates; reflecting with others in the speed networking slots; (and yes, for those of you who know me, I was also doing lots in the chats of each session I joined); it struck me that a lot of policy we've seen in the UK over the last 20-30 may actually not have been that great for the impacts they've created.

Sharing stories through the conversations made me realise/re-enforced my ideas that:

- the reason we have an apparent glut of social investment that most lenders are struggling to 'get out', is because it was a government policy agenda that said it would be a 'magic bullet' that the sector needed (but with little research or evidence to substantiate this)?

- it was also government policy that gave us the Community Interest Company (CIC), at a time when it admitted that the wider sector had no stated need or appetite for any new legal forms. It also created them in a way that simply 're-badged' various existing company features as something 'new and unique'. Perhaps this the is reason why CICs seem to have always struggled to have more longevity than regular private businesses, and are usually more reliant on grants than charities are?

- and those early policy agendas also drove the impetus for social enterprises to be delivering public sector contracts: yet the researches that have been published in subsequent years point to most social enterprises not using this as a mainstay of how they trade, and for those that do, they often do so at a trading loss?

But despite this, having had separate policies as we have, has meant the profile and awareness of the concept of social enterprise is higher than it might have otherwise been.

However... I was also reminded as I traded stories with others in the Forum, that most of the research about the specific needs of social enterprises shows that they have more in common with private businesses than not - and in the very early days of the explosion of interest and activity around social enterprise (at the turn of the millennium), it was 'regular' business support bodies and services, and the policies that informed them, that sought to integrate the majority of support for this 'new' sector.

There was subsequently a 'parting', but now, 20-ish years on, I'm starting to see some signs that there's thought and interest in exploring how they might be re-integrated (through the likes of Growth Hubs, Shared Prosperity Fund programmes, etc). 

And perhaps this emerging possible refocussing of policy is coming about because we've now had sufficient time to understand the impact of these early policies? As one of the key speakers suggested, "it can take at least 5-10 years to understand the impact and effects of a policy, so we need to treat them as more experimental". In those early days of social enterprise, there was scant data to base policies on, in comparison to what we now know and understand - so maybe policy makers need to start being braver in resetting the paradigms that they're working with? 

However, creating such a shift will take time and effort - and for those making the policies, represents a scaring foraying into new unknowns.

Maybe the best way we can be part of bringing this change about, was an idea shared that social enterprises might best create influence amongst policy makers by 'stealth': offering and asking to engage in staff secondment schemes, so that those informing the design of future infrastructure get first-hand experience of the realities of how it would be likely to be actually experienced by those it's intended to benefit. This may not be the usual 'showy' way that we're encouraged to try and lobby and advocate (with huge petitions, and PR stunts), but reminds us that everyone in the wider (eco)systems are ultimately human beings, and we can best get things done by engaging and building relationships with each other as such.

For more reflections on the Forum, see - https://sewfonline.com/empowering-rural-communities-and-youth-sewf-policy-forum-highlights/