Category Archives: Funding and fundraising

Funding, the arts, and balance.

Posted on by

Leafing through the weekend papers, there’s a lot of reporting going on of the Arts Council cuts in funding, and how they are affecting arts organisations in different ways. Admittedly, the bleeding-heart liberal, left-leaning, cappuccino–supping papers I read are arguably more likely to cover theatre types getting angry, but coverage on the whole shebang, on legal threats, on literature translation, and much more seems quite a lot over the course of two or three days. Where was the media when the Community Champions fund, one of the few providing grassroots support to individual community activists, was ditched? [the CC fund provided up to £2000 to over 10,000 people and had a pretty impressive record of outcomes and impact too].

The message also seems confused: one article lambasted the amount spent on opera, whilst another pointed out how a regional opera company was having its funding cut as an example of a poor decision. Ultimately, you have to feel some sympathy with the funders: their overall funding is increasingly constricted (falling lottery sales + Olympics), and there are often no "right" answers in these cases. Whilst calls for ‘arts’ people to run these funds have some validity, the nuts and bolts of effective grant-giving is as much about measurement, monitoring and administration as about informed decision-making.

Clearly, the process could have gone better (pre-Xmas with little response time) and could, possibly, have been more transparent. But the coverage has seemed quite unbalanced. This article, for example, with the calming title of "the final reckoning", details 6 arts organisations facing cuts. All worthy ca(u)ses, particularly the two theatres, it would seem to me. But none facing extinction, and some facing a reduction of around a fifth or sixth of their annual budget: substantial, but how many third sector organisations enter a financial year with all their funding and budget secured? Indeed, the experiences of these arts organisations will chime with many in the third sector….though the amount of coverage / campaigning in the media is markedly different. And where is the coverage of the organisations (700+) receiving an increase in funding from March, and the details of what greater impact they can now have?

From an SSE point of view, it’s clear that this could affect students and Fellows who work in the arts sphere, of whom there are quite a few. On the other hand, several current students in London, and (shortly) in Liverpool and East Midlands have places funded by a programme which is supported (amongst others) by the Arts Council. Crucial support at a key stage of their journey in changing people’s lives through the arts.

Swings, as they say, and roundabouts: and no black and white answers.

Share Button

Transparency and giving well….

Posted on by

Regular readers will know that I often cite the delivery, quality, transparency mantra as important foundations for any socially-beneficial enterprise seeking to operate in today’s world/markets. Two of those, quality (including measurement) and transparency, have collided in a huge furore over a US-based philanthropic funder/evaluator called GiveWell. You know when the founder of an organisation has to title a blog post "I had a lapse in judgement, did a horrible thing, and I apologize", that things are not good.

Basically, one of GiveWell’s founders was caught asking himself a question (with a fake ID), then responding (with another ID) promoting GiveWell. He was also subsequently tracked using various aliases to promote GiveWell elsewhere online and, according to some posts, give their competitors a kicking. Not good, particularly when the organisation has shouted from the rooftops about the need for transparency and openness. This has made the reaction (see GiftHub and the original Metafilter post for the gruesome details) all the stronger and more vicious, alongside the fact that many seasoned professionals in the field had already been rubbed up the wrong way by GiveWell’s perceived arrogance and naivety (the two founders are recent converts from hedge fund management, and their initial response was to offer the MetaFilter community money by way of an apology).

The laundry continues to be aired in public too. The much-respected blogger Lucy Bernholz is on GiftWell’s board, and has posted here asking what she/the organisation should do.  Having put itself forward, as Jeff Trexler puts it, as a model of accountability, it will be interesting to see how it pans out.

What’s interesting about this, I think, is not only the importance of walking the walk as far as transparency is concerned, but also about really understanding the internet and its power (constructive and destructive). If people thought that this blog was being used to advertise products, or had press releases placed with it, it would damage the credibility…as would any suggestion that we were making up comments on this blog or other people’s. At the same time, people expect the blog to represent and inform about the work of SSE and its students and Fellows, amongst other material, in as fair and objective a way as possible. We don’t always get the tone right, and sometimes have strong, subjective opinions, but trying to manipulate the audience is never an option, as GiveWell are discovering.

Incidentally, our new intern Thor does exist and is not a figment of my imagination. He’ll be giving the unvarnished, barely moderated truth in his month-long stay with us here….

[UPDATE: the GiveWell founder has been demoted to Program Officer, according to this official statement from the organisation’s board]

Share Button

Gore, greenness and giving

Posted on by

I watched An Inconvenient Truth last night (I know: bit behind the times etc) which was good, if fairly depressing, Sunday night viewing. I found the powerpoint / argument / evidence compelling and got increasingly frustrated with the Gore-centred family interludes. Well worth seeing, as it does (re) inspire you to act and do what you can (particularly the credits, which are brilliantly done).

It was also remarkably relevant, given the conference in Bali currently and the news that Australia (as promised in recent election) has signed up to the Kyoto agreement. Which, at least according to Gore’s film, leaves the US as the only ‘advanced nation’ left who hasn’t. Nuff said. Of course, there will be those wondering why everyone has to fly to a beautiful location in Indonesia for the event (and, btw, it’s remarkable how many shots of Al Gore in an airport there are in the film), but let’s hope the outcomes justify the carbon outlay.

In other Gore-related news, my favourite headline of last week was "How the other half give", which discusses a hugely glamorous event to raise cash from, and engage/involve, celebrities for charitable causes. Those attending included Al Gore, Bob Geldof, Benazir Bhutto, Bianca Jagger and..er… Jon Bon Jovi. Very much like the SSE Xmas party, then, just with less glamour but a slightly larger budget. Apparently, the last event involved spending of £800,000, of which half was on fundraising costs; which doesn’t seem like a great return, but there you go. If, as the organisers put it, it is as much about "educating" those present as it is about philanthropy, then let’s hope those objectives are achieved. The power that celebrities have to raise awareness and model behaviour remains extraordinary in today’s world.

But raising awareness has to translate into action, and that is where some high-profile figures do better than others. What stayed with me most from Gore’s film, alongside all the science, was his quote from Winston Churchill, and it seems to be very much about that urgency to act…not just speak and reflect.

"The era of
procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing, and baffling
expedience of delays is coming to a close. In its place, we
are coming to a period of consequences."

Share Button

Will the private sector discredit or absorb social enterprise?

Posted on by

These (discredit / absorb) are two opinions of the private sector: social enterprise relationship I’ve read recently.

The first was from Cliff Prior, CEO of UnLtd, who was reported (in this Third Sector article) as making the point that "social enterprises are in danger of being discredited by private sector imitators" (aka profit-making businesses adopting a social enterprise model). Nigel Kershaw (of Big Issue Invest) rebutted this with "if you are transforming society, it doesn’t matter what you are".

The second was from Julia Meek on Catalyst’s Social Business Blog (Social Businesses: Victims of their own success?). In this post, she discusses the trend for mainstream businesses to adopt the approaches of social businesses, and then adopt them wholesale at a much bigger scale. Or, as Julia puts it:

"These supermarkets, electricity suppliers, market leaders and others
have been able to watch the market and let social businesses prove the
effectiveness of their various approaches. On observing a successful
one the companies have been able to leverage their infrastructure,
human capital, market positioning etc. to adopt it quickly themselves,
marketing ’social’ products and services to the same target audience
and at a lower price than can feasibly be offered by smaller, social
businesses."

This is partly a conversation about scale: can social businesses ever break the ‘ethical glass ceiling’, as Julia’s colleague puts it, and get the necessary investment to compete on more equal terms with the big boys? Does it mean that the best way for social businesses to make change is to pioneer/prove and hope for adaptation by the mainstream? (an approach often seen in the public sector and web 2.0 alike). She then posits 4 potential approaches, around quality, brand, partnerships and acquisitions. Well worth reading.

On the first, I partly agree with Cliff, in that just adopting a model / particular legal structure proves nothing, and this is a problem. This is as true for PCT’s hiving half of themselves off into a CIC (excuse acronym-itis) and then commissioning that ‘new’ half, as it is true for the private sector. Unless the primary mission of an organisation is a social one and the initiative is driven by a social entrepreneur / team of socially entrepreneurial leaders, then its motivation can always be called into question. But we see social entrepreneurs operating across all sectors, and that is where I agree with Nigel: ultimately, moving forward, there will be this increasing blurring of boundaries, and what will matter, as I’ve posted before, is:

– the quality of the work/activity/product
(reputation / measurement / evaluation / provenance etc)
– how well this is communicated
(brand / voice / connections to stakeholders etc)
– the transparency with which the organisation operates
(mission / finances / governance etc)

Regardless of the legal structure chosen, these will be key things for all organisations operating across this field; from enterprising charities through to socially-responsible companies.

It’s interesting to relate the second post to the ‘six practices of high-impact non-profits’ (which I mentioned here), in that one of those practices was to ‘serve and advocate’. If the pioneering role of social business in getting ethical / fair / green / social practices adopted by the mainstream is seen through this lens of advocacy, then maybe that helps place it in a slightly different context. Also, as I am bound to say in this context, the assumption is also there that social enterprises and the like want to scale up. As the Small Business Blog posted the other day, "69 percent of small business owners said that they prefer to have their business remain small.” If that is true in the private sector, surely the same can be said of the third sector / social enterprise movement as well? (If not more so, as ‘small and beautiful’ is a mantra to some).

And surely the movement should be proud to be influencing and changing the mainstream in the way that it has: how satisfying, however imperfectly done, to see big supermarkets pushing fairtrade coffee, to see Fiji water pushing its carbon neutrality, to see M&S put out its Plan A…none of which would have been achieved without hundreds of activists, campaigners and social entrepreneurs, and none of which we could have said even one, two, three years ago. Where we are strongest is in demonstrating, through quality practice and delivery, that things can be done differently….and that they are better done that way.

Share Button

Friday round-up: Coin St, Clinton, Camberwell, Collaboration

Posted on by

SSE is still recovering from its residential in Devon which was a great success. Write-up/report to follow soon. Though here are a few photos that give a snapshot (click to enlarge):

Dscn1019
Dscn1010_2
Dscn1038
Dscn1073

Dscn1076
Dscn1094
Dscn1116
Dscn1232
Dscn1300

So at least you know why we’re tired….anyway, the traditional Friday round-up:

– Social Entrepreneur Show going on in Olympia today and tomorrow. Part of Business Start-Up show that’s run for quite a few years….

– Whilst we were in Dartington, CAN had their Scaling Up event. Third Sector reports on some of the findings, namely that the supported organisations’ turnover increased 20% in two years, with social impact increasing 40% (presumbaly with a wider range of measures..). I was interested by this as well: "A CAN spokeswoman said Permira had received no return on its investment
of £690,000 because, in CAN’s view, the social enterprise sector is
“not yet ready to give market-rate returns”."

– Coin Street in the news with their ambitious South Bank plans….

– For all those who say the hype is out of control, check this report in the New York Sun: "A Bush-Clinton idea". The idea? Social entrepreneurship….Look forward to seeing George and Bill on our next programme.

– Chris Hill at Camberwell Project makes some good points in this article from the Yorkshire Post re. enterprise and deprivation.

– Interesting article in New York Times on the "right" places to learn entrepreneurship, which basically goes through lots of university-based courses. Then there’s a link to a different view, an article by George Gendron, who says "kids with passion are our next entrepreneurs", and that entrepreneurial life skills are needed by all…

– In the world where social networking meets non-profits, no-one understands/connects more than Beth Kanter: thoughts on Google Open Social et al in this post

– Also via Beth, Forces For Good: the Six Practices of High Impact Non-Profits is a new book out in the US. Read the authors’ essay on Stanford Social Innovation Review site: Creating High-Impact Non-Profits
The 6 practices, FYI, are:

  • serve and advocate (delivery not enough: policy to achieve big change)
  • make markets work (tap into self-interest / capitalism)
  • inspire evangelists (strong communities of supporters / emotional connections / involvement)
  • nurture non-profit networks (collaboration rather than competition)
  • master the art of adaptation (combining innovation, execution and learning)
  • share leadership (distribute amongst organisation / team)

Job done.

– Acumen Fund have a blog which occasionally has interesting gems. This post about Melinda Gates aiming to eradicate malaria is worth a read. I particularly enjoyed the following comment: "the experts are often expert in what has been, not what could be."

Cheers.

Share Button