Intelligent Reporting?

Posted on November 30, 2006 by sse

I thought I’d post an update about the ruckus that has kicked up around SSE Fellow Dave Pitchford’s Intelligent Giving website. Obviously [disclaimer alert] we are biased as we have a connection to the organisation, but I do think it’s an interesting tale with some relevant lessons.

It started with an article about Children in Need which criticised it being poor at reporting/transparency and recommended giving direct to local charities rather than central grant-givers, because that’s a more efficient way of donating. This then led to an article in the Times and lots of follow-ons in the Mail, the Sunday Mirror, the Sunday Telegraph (in which Terry Wogan called them ‘contemptible’) and across the sector press as well.

The IG team claim the original Times article misquoted them badly, and that several of the subsequent ones have as well (see their blog and the discussion forum on the site for all the links and rebuttals and responses).

Most recently, yesterday’s Society Guardian weighed in as well, quoting critics from the Institute of Fundraising (‘crude’!) and Sue Ryder Care ("disturbing"!; disclaimer: SRC’s annual review gets strong criticism on the IG website). What’s interesting is that none of the articles or critics have actually answered the original points from the article, but merely said, effectively, "who are these upstarts!" or, as the SRC man puts it more eloquently, these "self-appointed guardians – with apparently little demonstrable understanding of the operating framework of modern charities".

Now obviously we at the SSE know a little more about it, but you only have to look at the people who’ve helped/advised (Geoff Mulgan, David Robinson, Luke Fitzherbert, Fred Mulder, New Philanthropy Capital, Esmee Fairbairn Foundation etc. etc….) and to have seen the 43 criteria they judge by, and how they were thought through to know that the "little demonstrable understanding…" is way off beam. You only have to look at the sensitive wording around, for example, fundraising and admin costs on each profile to see that this is far from crude. (the US version, Charity Navigator, does include these in its ratings….). See also this discussion on Fundraising UK’s forum, which is much calmer…

As for self-appointed, well, to a degree all social entrepreneurs are to begin with (who "appointed" Lady Ryder to start her first nursing home? or Michael Young to start the Consumers Association? etc..or did they just see a problem that they understood and aim to solve it?), but what the article misses is arguably the most important point. Yes, the founder/backer have a background in journalism (along with a whole other range of cross-sector work) but they are also both donors. That is to say that they come from the community they are aiming to serve…rather than, perhaps, one of the countless voluntary sector-led initiatives which are operating in the same field. And they have worked hard (see above) to get buy-in from the sector at large…very few charities actually seem to have complained, but see it as a potentially welcome addition to the field.

The only part of the criticism that rings in any way true is that charities should be judged by impact and effectiveness, rather than just finances/transparency/accountability. A massive complex job that I’m sure Intelligent Giving would be delighted to take on with greater capacity. After all, it wasn’t criticising CIN’s impact, but its reporting and the inefficiency of the giving mechanism…..

Finally, it’s interesting to note that the same edition of the Guardian featured an article calling for charities to be more professional, including "And governance issues should be addressed. If you are to handle public funds, you must be visibly accountable and transparent." Meanwhile, there is news elsewhere about a consultation for the government funded Charitable Giving and Philanthropy Research Centre ….so clearly they are operating in a field of some relevance, no?

The lessons (for me)?

– Social entrepreneurs do challenge the status quo and are often self-appointed; but that’s not a bad thing as long as they’re not being some heroic individual who is not listening, understanding or engaging with their stakeholders/beneficiaries…..which is not the case here

– The media is a double-edged sword (OK, not so much a lesson as revision); + one article can lead to another….but if the first one doesn’t get it quite right…..

– That the sector needs challenging if it wants to improve, and needs to acknowledge its weaknesses as well as communicate its strengths; being honest about your weaknesses (and how you intend to address them) is far better than communicating that "everything is perfect" (does anyone ever believe that?)…

– Informed debate is healthy and to be welcomed….

MySociety or WhySociety?

Posted on November 17, 2006 by sse

Great coverage of the E-Democracy 06 conference by David Wilcox over on his Designing for Civil Society blog. Of most interest to me was the following “Not just e-democracy, new democracy says MySociety founder” post. This includes:

“Once you have managed to achieve the funding for tools, fix the bugs,
get people interested it’s time, says Tom [Steinberg, founder of MySociety], to reflect on what changes
we might want to see in the system, as well as in policies. What should
we be pushing for, and what are the dangers in doing that? After the
rush to practical solutions, it’s time for some theory.

Put around the other way “what could be the wrong philosophy of
representative democracy that would lead to us all building and
spending time on tools that were actually unhelpful”.

Tom wants people who are building sites in the e-democracy field
to start talking about what sort of democracy they are building those
tools for.”

Interesting this, and it obviously follows on from something that Matthew Taylor said earlier in the conference, namely:

“The Internet, said Matthew, had helped people to mobilise. It offers
new methods of search and exposure. But does it yet really help people
engage with dilemmas and challenges, and work their way through to
conclusions? He presented that challenge to developers and advocates of
e-democracy tools.”

It is very similar to what I said to Francis Irving (one of the MySociety crowd, who did PublicWhip.org.uk and then has had significant involvement in their other projects) when we were speaking together at an event in Wales. I basically said that the use of technology had to be driven by social need, that it was a ‘failure’ if it was driven by the desires/interests of the designers, rather than the needs of the users, that the use of new tech must be grounded in the organisation’s values, and that people shouldn’t overestimate (or underestimate) what technology can achieve.

Nothing very groundbreaking or controversial there….though I did then go on to say that I felt the challenge was not developing new tools but translating internet activity to real-world action; I then added that it was perhaps instructive to note that one of the primary successes of Pledgebank was the establishment of a digital rights organisation….so was that really reaching new people, extending democracy etc, or are these sites mostly being used by internet-savvy, Guardian-reading middle-class types? [NB – I should say that I would put myself squarely in that bracket, and think all of the sites are exceptionally well-built and useful….for me].

Now this may be unfair, and I have been a champion of all their sites in the past (particularly via the Global Ideas Bank and Blog + our Social Innovation Awards) and recommend and use them regularly, but certainly what Tom and Matthew say above would tend to support that view: they are great tools, but are they really changing anything? To our students at the replicas bolsas, they are just another useful resource to take advantage of, but it is their action, commitment and focus to change things in the real world that will make a long-lasting difference.

Now I don’t think Tom has ever overclaimed what these sites they can do, but their “sexiness” to the media and to the political establishment (which is Tom’s background as a policy wonk) has perhaps led to this situation. There seems to be a stepping back in that statement above (i.e. we don’t need more tools without really thinking about whether they are needed, and what changes they will make; and what, ultimately, this is all aiming towards). Indeed, surely the subtext of what Tom says above is that they rushed to develop stuff without thinking about why they were doing it. Even the most action-prone social entrepreneurs usually know their objectives and goals before they rush headlong into delivery….

These are amazing and incredibly useful tools for information, for campaigning, for communication, for accountability and so on. But it’s important we have them in context, which is why the statements above are welcome.

Should social entrepreneurs and social enterprises blog?

Posted on November 10, 2006 by sse

Have been collecting a few pages recently about why blogging (and Web 2.0 type-stuff generally) is good/useful for (some) non-profits / social entrepreneurs / social enterprises….and I promise this isn’t just to get the boss off my back ;0)

1) TechSoup (a great resource in itself) has an interesting article with four non-profits giving their background to becoming bloggers….relevant points include:

– figuring out how blogs will add value to your clients/constituents (organisational needs must drive the technological ones; these are means to an end)
– they are an easy way to keep content fresh and relevant….but only if the blogger(s) keeps content fresh and relevant, which is one of the main challenges
– it can be therapeutic (!) to share and relate experiences, but it also helps if you have a reason to blog (debate and advocacy as well as information)
– they can build a sense of community (and reach new audiences)
– travel and event blogging are two proven uses of the technology
– not just a tool for organisational promotion / informatio provision, but also can be used (privately) as an archiving or minuting tool…

2) 10 Ways Non-Profits can use Blogs by Britt Bravo is a good introduction as well, which adds to what I’ve pulled out above. Some of her points include:

– it can be a good way to involve staff and volunteers (particularly ‘virtual’ volunteers)
– it can provide a place for resources and information FROM constituents, as well as to them (i.e. we write about SSE Fellows and their work, as well as information about social entrepreneurship….)
– a place for the community/stakeholders to voice their opinion
– and, of course, to reach potential donors / investors

3) Beth’s blog has lots of useful information; just scroll down the left-hand side of her blog for lots of useful links / introductions / explanations of del.icio.us, RSS feeds, blog-starting etc…well worth a look. One post I found from her links was Weblog Strategies for Non-Profits which has some good generic stuff and advice, and how (adventurous) organisations might want to take it to the next level (eg. give weblogs to trainees and teach them how to self-document)

4) 12 reasons why UK businesses don’t blog argues against each of those reasons in turn, thus giving you 12 reasons why businesses should, including

– blogging = SEO (search engine optimisation); i.e. it will bring more traffic to ALL your IT (public website etc); aka "Google loves weblogs"
– it is not just a US thing (even if they’re further ahead…as with all the links above)
– they are EASY to set up….why not trial? and so on…

5) Blogs are not the only fruit is an excellent article not only about blogs, but about why other web 2.0 stuff is useful. Posted by the Headshift people, who created the new Demos website. Although written a while ago (almost two years), it is still relevant and gives a good overview of where we are at, and what you might consider.

6) Also from Techsoup, Marnie Webb details 10 reasons why your organisation should start a blog. Much of which we’ve covered above, but further points include:

– you can become a trusted information source in a particular area
– a more personal voice that can engage people "on a more human level"
– you can use a variety of media very easily (even more the case now with Flickr / You Tube, Delicious et al around)

7) Marnie also points to an ‘old’ article (2003 is old, people) from NonProfit Quarterly entitled "What’s a blog and why should non-profits care?" It’s slightly dated but a good starting point if you’re beginning from scratch. Another simple overview is provided by Nancy Schwartz: Should your non-profit blog?

8) David Wilcox’s Designing for Civil Society is a great resource and a blog worth reading on this subject (he’s recently been writing about going beyond blogging to buzzing); check out his non-profit category which covers much in this area, and sign up to his feed for thinking at the forefront of social networking, knowledge and tech-design + partnerships…..

9) Another TechSoup article (yes, the US are ahead of us, although NCVO’s ICT Foresight project are trying to catch up a bit, as is the ICT Hub….+ the Media Trust), this one on the wider phenomenon of these people-centred web tools: What is Web 2.0 anyway?

10) Finally, ending on a podcasting note, check out this page for nonprofits considering their own podcasts (they whys and hows), also available as a podcast.

There’s plenty more around, often from links from the articles above, but these should give a fairly good introduction. All of the above bring out key points: blogs, podcasts and the rest are just tools, new ways to communicate, so don’t just get on board for hype; understand why you are doing it and how it fits with your overall marketing and communication objectives. On the flipside, if you do think it can make a difference to your organisation, and have thought through how and why, it is easy to set up and start writing. What is more difficult it to keep that commitment going forward, and meet the challenge of posting relevant, interesting, informative, entertaining material on a regular(ish) basis…If used effectively, though they have to be tools that social entrepreneurs and social enterprises should take into consideration, no matter how focused they are on running their organisation and project delivery. Focus on communication is also crucial.

Ultimately, what is good for businesses is good for social entrepreneur-led organisations of all types as well and, in some areas, more so given the different groups of stakeholders that third sector organisations answer to.

Next time, 10 reasons why we love lists ;0)

Category Archives: Web/Tech

MySociety or WhySociety?

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