Intern-ment

Posted on February 8, 2008 by sse

Whilst reading about Derek Conway and the other MPs paying their own family for internships and work experience (even the Third Sector got briefly drawn in), I got thinking about how this related to the use of interns by third sector organisations, particularly in the fields of policy and research. As regular readers of this blog will know, SSE recently had an intern over from St Olaf College in Minnesota, which was pretty much an unqualified success. Using volunteers in this way can clearly make a substantial difference to an organisation like SSE whose capacity is still relatively small, if growing. And (I think) it can be a genuine win-win, with significant personal development, learning and contacts/networks for the intern in question.

The problem, which we have debated a fair bit internally, is how to ensure that this doesn’t run counter to our other principles: namely, the need for diversity in the third sector, the need for entrants and new leaders to come up from the grassroots as well as from the ‘grad-routes’. For, inevitably, for someone to take a full-time three-month position at an organisation in (usually) London, unpaid with (possibly) some expenses, they have to have support from elsewhere. This is usually parental, either in the form of direct monetary support, or in the form of free rent & board. Or they are in university full-time and can afford not to work during some of their holidays. Generally (and this is a generalisation), these means of support skew the potential intake to those with a more privileged or well-off background.

So how can we ensure internships go to a real cross-section, to the best people regardless of background? Clearly, bursaries and sponsorship is one way: some universities arrange placements and support expenses, such as identifying cheaper accommodation or directly paying expenses. In Thor’s case, this meant that he could afford to not do his restaurant manager job for a month in the holidays, and come to SSE.

But how to also extend these opportunities further out? Our neighbours Operation Black Vote recently won an award for an interesting shadowing scheme which focuses on political internships / work experience, precisely to avoid the old-boy networks we see continuing in those establishments; these might provide a useful model; or something along the lines of this scheme, Leaders Together. Maybe there is a case for something similar in the third sector: funded internships that take the burden off the organisation and the individual to find the money to make it possible, and allow for a broader, more diverse intern network. Happy to hear of any such initiatives or ideas: there could be a social enterprise in this….

The Mawson Chronicles (part 2)

Posted on January 24, 2008 by sse

Recently, I mentioned in a post the article in the Guardian which featured an excerpt from Andrew Mawson’s new book, The Social Entrepreneur. He critiqued New Labour pretty strongly, and this prompted a response the following week in the same paper’s Society pages, both from the current Minister for the Third Sector, Phil Hope (see here) and in a response from Lynsey Hanley, who is the recent author of a book on Estates.

The minister largely rebutted the critique of government, and detailed some of their activities in the field of social enterprise, saying they were constructive rather than destructive. Hanley’s response trained its sights more on social entrepreneurship itself, and had a sideswipe at the Bromley-By-Bow-Centre on the way. The crux of her argument is in the following two paragraphs:

"It will take an avalanche of involvement, commitment and money to
convince people living in places like Bromley-by-Bow that their lives
will change. No matter how many new enterprises "the social
entrepreneur" gets off the ground, such an approach is piecemeal. A
landscape gardening business, for instance, is not going to become a
major local employer; neither is a dance studio or a hairdresser’s.

It’s
not expected in wider society that everyone should want to set up their
own pottery business, so why should it be used as a model for
transforming poor people’s lives? The idea of social entrepreneurship,
while appearing to generate a third way between the state and the
market, is no better than a charity-sector version of Dragons’ Den if
it is presented to entire communities as "the only way" to do things."

It’s an interesting debate, and I found myself agreeing both with parts of what Mawson wrote and with Hanley’s response. I think both found themselves at extremes in order to make their point, with Mawson giving off a slightly top-down arrogance (this is the way to do it, government doesn’t understand) and Hanley throwing out the baby with the bathwater (social entrepreneurship won’t solve much; physical regeneration is the key).

My response ended up in the Guardian letters page yesterday, so here’s what I wrote:

"Lynsey Hanley is undoubtedly right to point out that social
entrepreneurship is not the right approach for all regeneration, nor a
panacea for all community problems (Comment, January 16), but she risks
throwing out the baby with the bath water. Social entrepreneurship
should not be construed as something "exclusive", or something imposed.
Indeed, it should provide an opportunity for people from all
backgrounds in all areas to contribute to a wider change.

Our
experience demonstrates that, in tandem with interventions from
government and physical regeneration agencies, social entrepreneurship
can help transform communities through job creation, increasing skills
and confidence, and meeting unmet needs. Not a cure-all, agreed, but
more than a spangly sticking plaster."

So there you go. Hope to review Lord Mawson’s book at some point, when things settle down a bit here (aka never).

Gore, greenness and giving

Posted on December 3, 2007 by sse

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."

Breakfast with Cameron on localism

Posted on November 13, 2007 by sse

SSE attended a breakfast event this morning organised by its ever-active landlords the Young Foundation here in wintry Bethnal Green. This blog doesn’t really function till its second cup of coffee but made the effort to hear David Cameron speak about local entrepreneurship and accountability.

Geoff Mulgan of YF introduced by describing Bethnal Green as "one of the most rich and fertile places on earth" and mentioned several Michael Young-inspired initiatives, including "schools for social entrepreneurs". That’s us, folks. He also noted in passing that, whereas most politicians are boosted by an election, David Cameron is one of the select few to be boosted by a non-election….He was followed by Sheikh Aliur Rahman of the Davenant Centre, who gave his reflections on the local area, and their programme working with young people, Future Leaders.

Cameron started off by saying that Michael Young stood for "enterprise for social progress" and that he was "an institution builder", and that institutions help "formalise relationships for social purpose". This point he linked to his recent promotion of co-operative schools (dynamic, democratic structures to complement more commercial alternatives). He then moved on to more familiar territory: how the centralist state should be dismantled and abandoned, because our culture has changed: we are moving, he said, "into the post-bureaucratic age", with technology (eg Google Earth) liberating us and giving us power over our own lives.

This he related to democracy + local action, and how he wanted to "open up democracy" and see "customised solutions to local problems" and an "invigoration of local democracy". He made the interesting point that "local control works nationally" because "diversity strengthens the whole". Or, for you Latin scholars out there, ‘e pluribus unum’. What this boiled down to in practice was deregulation and greater powers for local government (re. schools, hospitals, police etc.). He also raised the prospect of doing away with various quangos (Learning and Skills Council, RDAs, Housing Corporation etc) to devolve their powers locally.

Then came the new initiative: the "democratisation of council tax", which involves doing away with capping and instead allowing a referendum if local councils want to impose large increases. Though some might think this would involve more bureaucracy / admin rather than less, this is intended to improve accountability and devolve power to people at the grassroots. (see here for more).

The theme of devolution was key: he referred to "triple devolution", a concept we’ve bandied around and discussed here previously, which means devolving power beyond councils to other local, community-led institutions and organisations. This is something SSE is in favour of: that "empowering" local people should mean "giving them power", which means devolving money to them and the organisations they lead and run.

What was missing from David Cameron, if anything, was the practical ways in which this would happen. As he himself said, a culture change is needed at local government level to trust third sector organisations and bottom-up innovation. But when questioned on this (by, for example, London Civic Forum, BASSAC and DTA, who were all in attendance), he could only say that we "need trust in the third sector from local government" and that they needed to be "encouraged" and that the "Compact hadn’t really worked". There was little practically to try and create that culture change, which, in many people’s experience in this field, means that triple devolution is more likely to stop at local government level and not find its way further down: a problem that will become of acute importance if even more considerable powers are devolved to councils.

So, whilst welcoming the overarching vision (his call for a "flowering of local organisations beyond local councils" very much fits with SSE’s long tail, for example), it would be interesting to know what practical steps and policies the Conservatives would employ to ensure this triple devolution, this true empowerment, takes place in the future.

Category Archives: Politics

Intern-ment

Gore, greenness and giving

Welcome to our social enterprise blog. Here you'll find news, views and updates from the School for Social Entrepreneurs.