maybe social investment isn't that different after all..?

I was able to make it along to this year's "Working Capital" conference that was recently staged in Sheffield - a day to immerse myself in reflecting, arguing, sharing, and further exploring the wonderful world of 'social investment'.

Depending on who you speak with, Social Investment is either the next big thing (and has been for a few years...); is a market that's suffered failure in the past and needed interventions from government; or a smoke screen for covering the cuts to grants that sustain many charities and social enterprises...

money might not grow on trees, but these desktop garden
pots from Key Fund mean you can grow most other things 

The day offered a range of perspectives and stories: Cliff Prior of Big Society Capital stating openly what many are starting to whisper in hushed tones - social enterprise should be moving more towards retail and consumer markets because public commissioners are very tough nuts to either crack, or to change their behaviours; and Hazel Blears encouraging those same commissioners to do more to learn from each other to progress the social value act (but in doing seemingly having forgotten previous national initiatives over the last 20 odd years that were designed to do just that...).

But the impressions I'm left with (initially at least - as always, I'm open to others coming back to me to challenge me on these points) are:

• most of the specialist lenders to social enterprise make it difficult for the sector to borrow from them because they usually have repayment terms of only 5 years maximum. But in the private sector its not uncommon to 'refinance' a loan - it can often be hard to get a loan because you've no history of repaying debts; but once you start to, you can flip your loan to another lender on better terms... So what's to stop social enterprises getting what seem initially expensive loans in comparison with the high street banks who see them as being too risky, showing they can manage repayments, and then transfer the loan to their high street bank on better terms?

• the things that are important to those seeking investment (quick decision, affordable terms, flexibility), are the same as for any other type of organisation in any sector seeking a loan

• as a general movement, social investment seems to be a little bit too 'introspective' for my liking: NESTA undertake regular national surveys of social and alternative finance, which no-one referenced today. Without understanding how different 'flavours' of social finance compare to other finance types in how widely they're being used, how can we hope to make a best informed decision about where we should be investing our time in pursuing investment?

But but in all, a good day to reflect, see some friendly and familiar faces, and hopefully the start of most other enterprises' journeys into investment that will ultimately help them create bigger and better impacts on, and for, their respective communities.

whatever happened to the Conservative Coops?

So, its party season again, and with a general election looming, every sector seems to be vying for attention with all the separate parties to become the solution that they’re each hoping to find that’ll help them to deliver on all their aspirations but won’t bankrupt the economy in the process...

One such sector which every party (at least in recently history) has embraced and talked up are co-ops: marrying social justice with economic independence and free market economies, they seem too good to be true and have often been cited in many a politician’s speech as to their ‘fab-ness’. Recently, co-op sector bodies such as Co-operativesUK have also started to more explicitly publish the ways in which co-ops can help each party deliver on their conference promises too.

But how far can we really hold faith in these political parties’ interest? Historically, government and political parties were so anti-coops that the movement formed its own political party to ensure that the sector wasn’t discriminated against in parliament! In more recent history, the Conservative party launched its own co-ops initiative. “The Conservative Co-operative Movement” (CCM) to capitalise on politicians’ interest in co-ops and to help keep this sector at the heart of parliament and to their policy and thinking. And they even set it up as a co-op society! (Intrigued, I even became a Member of this society, despite my father being a Labour councillor and a Co-op party Chair...)

But fast forward 4 years. In that time as a Member, I’ve had 3 general emails; 1 item of post (with postage underpaid on it); no notifications of Members’ meetings (or minutes from them); and I also spotted that they’ve been identifying themselves by another co-op society’s registration number in their stationary. Their website seems to have disappeared and I’ve not been able to get any response to messages I’ve sent to contact details I have.

What can I conclude from this?

In the absence of any response that may suggest otherwise, it seems like the CCM were an opportunistic political attempt to cash-in on the integrity and hard work of the co-op sector over the last few centuries. It’s obviously not understood what it means to be a co-operative by not acting as one. And it doesn’t seem to notice when it stops being able to deliver what it was set up to do.

Some might say the above analysis and conclusions are reflective of this wider political parties approach in general, but I couldn’t possibly comment...

I dare you to go to a library...

Libraries are dangerous places...

They're full of ideas, inspiration, encouragement, excitement, reassurance, and comfort;

Full of stories of worlds that have been, could be, and are still to come;

Places for people to meet, to plan, to escape;

Shelves loaded with adventures, sadness, and hope;

Libraries are places of revolution and refuge - they allow us to redefine and reshape ourselves and our communities.

They are our stronghold against injustice and tyranny, our celebration of how far we've come.


When was the last time you dared to spend time in a library?

the real reason libraries are struggling...

Some of you will know that I've a long-term interest (love) in libraries - especially with regard to the support that they can offer local communities in light of increasing cuts to others public services. I also curate a twitter list at https://twitter.com/AdrianAshton2/lists/libraries

Contributors to that list often cite various reasons as to the decline and difficulties our public libraries currently face, but I'm coming to the idea that actually the biggest problem for our libraries isn't changing demographics, the rise of the internet, etc but something far more mundane - council bureaucracy! 

I was recently invited to have my picture taken by my local newspaper in Todmorden library as part of a feature on the support that's available to start-up businesses in the local area. However, despite speaking with the library staff and making 2 phone calls to heads of departments, we could only gain a provisional permission to have picture taken of me (a library-card carrying member) looking at some of their books on business start-up (to encourage more people to check them out and use the library), in a public building!, and that final permission would only be given once they'd seen the pictures that the press photographer had taken...

With this clear lack of leadership, is it any wonder that libraries are struggling to remain engaged with the changing faces of their local communities? 

Maybe this is why many feel that the future of public libraries lies in their being managed by the communities they serve, and moving out of local authority ownership and control (after all, that's how public libraries originally started!)


-------------------
updated - well, it looks like we finally got full permission after all! the pictures now on-line in glorious technicolour - http://bit.ly/KfrKN3

The Big Society will lead to Anarchy!! (and why that's a good thing...)

Anarchy is a phrase that’s often mis-understood – people associate it with lawlessness, chaos and disorder; with fear and unrest. But it’s exactly what will increasingly happen as the Big Society show trundles on...

You see, Big Society is all about us as ‘mere citizens’ taking ever increasing amounts of control and responsibility over things that affect our lives and upon which we depend – public services, for example. And a chance comment at a recent Co-production seminar in Manchester made me realise that this means we’ll be moving to an ever increasing anarchistic society.

We were discussing how coproduction will see the traditional ‘powers that be’ and commissioning bodies become ever less powerful and loose their control over how individuals decide upon how they want the social and health services they access look and feel. “It’ll be madness – a free for all – pure anarchy!” was the comment made in semi-jest...

But actually anarchy will be a good thing to happen – because anarchy isn’t about the breakdown of society and law and order, it’s about the absence of government control over our lives; it’s about us as ‘ordinary citizens’ coming together voluntarily and co-operatively to decide and agree upon the type of society that we feel it most appropriate and just. And coproduction may offer us the best framework/model by which to achieve this.

But if nothing else, isn’t it therefore about time we starting talking not about the Big Society, but the Society of Anarchy? (who’d have thought it – David Cameron: the anarchist!)

When is the Big Society NOT the Big Society? (when it’s the co-op movement...)

The Big Society rumbles ever onwards, and there still seems to be widespread confusion about what it actually is. However, the Commission on Big Society have produced this handy definition, which has since been adopted by national sector bodies Locality and ACEVO (amongst others):

"A society in which power and responsibility have shifted: one in which, at every level in our national life, individuals and communities have more aspiration, power and capacity to take decisions and solve problems themselves, and where all of us take greater responsibility for ourselves, our communities and one another"

All sounds very noble, but it’s also a definition of the co-operative movement (you know, that things that’s also been rumbling along for a few centuries now!)

Let me illustrate by mapping the defining Co-operative values and principles against this definition:

"A society in which power and responsibility have shifted: one in which, at every level in our national life, individuals and communities have more aspiration, power and capacity to take decisions and solve problems themselves (self-help, democracy, equity), and where all of us take greater responsibility for ourselves (self-responsibility), our communities and one another (social responsibility, caring for others, concern for community)"

This apparent ‘hi-jacking’ of the co-op movement to support the Conservative Party’s ambitions doesn’t stop with defining it's Big Society. Remember when they also launched the Conservative Co-operative Movement, apparently oblivious to the pre-existence of the existing wider co-operative movement...?

So – when is the Big Society not the Big Society? When it’s a political attempt to claim credit for others hard work and efforts over the last few centuries... So is it time to reclaim the Big Society as the Co-operative Society yet?

Is co-production the key to a more equal and equitable society?

OK – so, some background first:
Its increasingly argued (and accepted) that the root cause of the causes of most of the ills in our society are due to inequality (http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/).

Separate to this is the increasing interest in the delivery of public services through what’s called ‘co-production’ – the concept that as the recipient of services, it’s better to do ‘with us’ than ‘to us’; after all, surely as a patient we know best what treatments or care packages we’ll be more likely to engage with? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coproduction_of_public_services_by_service_users_and_communities


Last week I participated in one of the co-production road shows that Nesta are running (http://www.nesta.org.uk/events/previous_events). As well as being a nice opportunity to reflect on some of the work and thinking I’ve been doing around this over the last year or so, it was also a nice opportunity to catch up with someone I’d not seen for 7 years since moving away from Cambridge! http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-church/13/497/8

Anyways – in one of the sessions the idea was floated that coproduction = equality. After mulling this over for a bit, I think I agree. For Coproduction to truly work, all parties involved need to be able to respect each others’ experience and knowledge as being equally valid to their own, and also positively reciprocate to manifest that respect and build the trust that’s needed in such a relationship/dialogue.

I then started to think that the coproduction arrangement would also be more equitable in that it has to ensure fair and appropriate access for everyone to be able to engage with it, depending on their circumstances – after all, in a society as diverse as ours, one size won’t fit all, so it’s only just that people be treated equitably according to their need.

So – on the face of it, coproduction isn’t just about creating a 'revolution' in public service delivery and better empowering us, the recipient of public services, it’s also directly contributing to tacking the inequalities that affect us through starting to shift our collective mindsets through our starting to view those around us being as equally important to us in determining what the best courses of action should be.

Sounds great so far, but wait… most public services are increasingly sub-contracted to private companies to deliver – and they’re likely to be very resistant to the idea of coproduction as a delivery model owing to the costs to them that it will involve. But surely with commissioning moving more to an outcomes based model, coproduction can only be a good thing for them as pilot studies show that coproduction generates better outcomes? (and if they need further convincing, apparently Nesta are already working on the business case for it as well…)


So – coproduction: not just a better way to deliver public services, but a model that contributes to our becoming a more equal and equitable society!


Of course, the co-operative movement has been using this approach already for a few centuries; maybe I’ll write a companion piece to this on that angle next...


(and special acknowledgement in this blog to http://twitter.com/RuthRosselson for encouraging me to write this up)

When is a co-op not a co-op?

There’s a famous surrealists’ riddle that asks “what’s the difference between a duck?” To which, most people will pause, realise that its probably going to take them a bit more time to figure something out that has no immediate or direct relevance to them and so ignore it.

Why am I telling you this? Well, because I’m concerned that the co-operative movement might be starting to become a surreal riddle.

Co-ops are high on the political agenda at the moment, with all the talk of ‘mutualism’, co-op councils and even a cushion manufacturer who’re presenting themselves as a new hybrid co-op model that makes it easier for co-ops to attract external equity investment.

However, co-ops are identified universally by a set of core values and principles. Anything that does not conform to these is not really a co-op (but perhaps an admirable venture based on social values). And if you start to look more closely at these ‘exciting new co-op models’, you might start to get a bit confused:


1) The ‘mutualism’ agenda - if you look up the term ‘mutualism’ you realise that what the politicians mean isn’t a true mutual (which would be run solely in the interests of its members – not a good fit for public services), but rather a workers or multi-stakeholder co-operative


2) The Lambeth Co-op council model states that it will work to an agreed set of principles – not all of which look very complementary or comparable to co-ops’:

Lambeth Co-op council principles:

• The council as the local democratic leader and civil society partner;
• Public services planned together and delivered through a variety of organisations which will improve outcomes, empower citizens and users, and strengthen civil society;
• Citizens incentivised to take part in the provision of public services;
• Public services enabling residents to engage in civil society through employment opportunities;
• Public services accessible from a variety of locations.

(taken from 'The Co-operative Council Sharing power: A new settlement between citizens and the state')

International co-op principles:

• Autonomy and Independence;
• Voluntary and Open Membership;
• Member Economic Participation;
• Education, Training and Information;
• Concern for Community;
• Co-operation among Co-operatives;
• Democratic Member Control.

(and there is also an additional values set that goes with these, too...Lambeth obvioulsy don't seem to think that a co-op needs values)

3) And the cushion manufacturer – well, they’re essentially looking at a nice profit share model to incentives employees, but not showing any intent to actually share ownership and power.


But does this really matter?

YES! Co-operatives are only as powerful as they are, and attract the support that they do because of their unique identity (an identity that many fear is only loosely protected in law…) If the co-operative movement is to remain as credible and powerful as it is, it needs to ensure that its unique identity remains ‘pure’ and not able to be ‘hi-jacked’ by others masquerading as co-ops when in doing so they only serve to ultimately confuse the general populace as to what co-ops actually are and so damage the movements’ brand and our shared heritage.


…so – when is a co-op not a co-op?

how businesses can actually benefit from the 'Big Society'

or..."Why i agree with the chief exec of the RSA - but not because of his thinking"

Matthew Taylor’s Comment section in the current issue of the RSA Journal calling for businesses to play their role in Big Society through engaging more with their local communities in relationship rather than token gesture is spot on. But I’m not sure I agree with the basis for his argument being solely on moral grounds.

I think that there are better arguments to be made for businesses to develop better relationships with the communities they based themselves on purely economic grounds:

1. Family firms – over the years this model of business has been seen to be amongst the most sustainable and long-lived, and amongst some of the best models of business to weather recession. Why? Because it roots itself in its local community. Local employees, local customers, local suppliers – all of whom understand the interdependent relationships they share with each other.

2. Compliance with legislation – companies are now legally required to show how they consider their local communities in the decisions they take (perhaps the most controversial aspect of Companies Act 2006)

Ask any business leader to sign up to a way of working based on a moral argument, and it’ll be an uphill struggle. Show them how building stronger relationships with their communities makes them comply more easily with legislation and create a stronger economic base, and they’ll bite your hand off...