Nick Hurd’s legacy

Well it’s been a busy week at ACEVO and in Downing Street. I had a good conversation with our new Minister for Civil Society on Wednesday. He has a strong record on finance and in charity – having founded his own charity in 2010. He is particularly interested in the power of social finance, and he will be speaking at an ACEVO fringe event on this topic at the Conservative Party Conference. At ACEVO we are keen to see progress on the role of civil society in public service delivery and I look forward to working with him on this in future.

But that said, it is sad to see Nick Hurd leave the post. He leaves OCS as the longest-serving Minister for Civil Society, and with an excellent record behind him on National Citizen Service, the Community First Fund and much more. He was widely respected on all sides of the sector as you can see from the plaudits that have come in this week.

I was interested to read Nick’s full resignation letter to the Prime Minister which conveys the range of his achievements and of his continued interest in the power of Britain’s civil society.

The comprehensive letter – which reads more like a handover note – points particularly to the importance in the next few years of making it easier for charities and social enterprises to properly participate in public service delivery. Nick recognises the crucial importance of access to social finance – which government still must improve on. He also points to the massive untapped potential of social value-based commissioning:

“There is of course much more that can be done to make it easier for social entrepreneurs and socially responsible businesses to create social value. The Social Value Act was a useful start but cannot be the end of our efforts to encourage intelligent  commissioning from a diverse market of suppliers, including charities, public sector mutuals and social enterprises. We have yet to unlock the full value that they can add in helping us tackle some of the most stubborn social challenges that undermine the  country. It is hard to see us meeting the challenge of delivering ‘better with less’ without our social economy fully engaged.”

So here is some useful advice for our sector and for Brooks as he steps in to post. Lots to develop on social value and on financing our sector’s social ambitions. And let’s not forget the importance too of protecting our right to speak out. We have just two months now before the Lobbying Act kicks in. The chilling effect is already being felt. A good letter in the Times this week by our friends at Bond put the urgency of the matter in clear terms. Its words should speak for us all.

“We and many others call for the act to be replaced by one which regulates party-political lobbying while safeguarding civil society’s right to speak out.  As it is, the Lobbying Act is a threat to a healthy democracy.”

Gagged? We shall see...

So after brave attempts by the Lords to change the 2 most obnoxious remaining bits of the Lobbying Bill we will now have a Lobbying Act. We may live to regret this day.

The real shame was that the staff costs amendment was a tied vote and so fell; which means we only needed one more peer and this would have been carried. It's a lesson for our sector to be more joined up and avoid mixed messages that are used against us.

There are other lessons to learn. Not all bad.

So, for example the work of the cross-sector Commission on Civil Society (www.civilsocietycommission.info) showed how we can come together across the wide diversity of our many, many charities when faced with a challenge.

However our work is not done. We now need to:

•  give advice to charities and campaigning bodies on what they can and can't do
  
• encourage charity leaders not to impose their own gag on what they do. As the recent report of the Independence Panel chaired by Sir Roger Singleton showed, there are strong dangers of self censorship; that CEOs and trustees are frightened off doing any campaigning for fear of falling foul of this new law or the bureaucracy it involves
  
•   we must monitor the effects of this new law. This was one of the key recommendations of the Commission. We'll ensure we have the evidence to persuade the next Government to make necessary changes.
  
• and finally ACEVO - and colleagues in our sister bodies - need to provide the support and advice charities need to get through this new minefield of red tape and to encourage all sector leaders to continue to speak truth to power. Knowing my members as I do I'm sure they won't be put off doing what's right by a piece of mean-minded legislation!

Yes we can!

So the Lords have come up trumps! We won the amendment to remove constituency limits in the Lobbying Bill. Acevo welcomed the Government changes to the Bill but we said there were 2 remaining obstacles; staff costs (we won that one last week) and constituency limits.

It’s actually quite unusual to win an amendment at the third reading stage of a Bill. As reported by Politics Home,

"16:55 Peers vote 248-222 on #LobbyingBill 3rd Reading (tad unusual) amendt re: NGO/charity campaigning activity."

It reflects the strength of feeling across parties on this measure and the power of the cross-sector Commission on Civil Society that ACEVO helped form.

So the pressure is now on government not to try and overturn these changes in the Commons. That would be unwise and I urge them to accept the strength of feeling on these 2 issues. They are both major changes to the previous electoral regime and represent a huge barrier to charities playing their full role in the democratic process; engaging with the top national debates and ensuring challenge and scrutiny for our putative legislators. This lobbying bill has done significant damage to our international reputation and the standing of our charity sector. Good sense would point to the Government accepting this cross-party consensus. 

The wider message is one I'm going to talk about tonight at our ACEVO AGM. We faced a range of challenges last year. But we go into 2014 in an optimistic frame of mind. Our message about how democracy relies on a vibrant civil society and how our public services need more third sector delivery is gaining traction.

I got the good news whilst having dinner in Westminster with a fundraiser for social finance. I raised a glass to our wise and sensible Lords, and to the skill and sagacity of The Lord Harries of Pentagarth who has so expertly led the Civil Society Commission.

I’ll post my AGM speech later. Bet you can't wait! Which reminds me that Twitter has been alive with comments on my recent leadership article in the Guardian. Headlined "leave your ego at the door" it has divided those who got the irony and those who were outraged. It certainly got a titter round the office - though I can't imagine why? And proves the point that a great headline gets your articles read!

Lobbying Bill; breaking news!

Today the government will table significant amendments to their ill thought through Lobbying bill. ACEVO and key Commission members had a helpful meeting yesterday to be told of the concessions. Good.

ACEVO resolved to help set up the Commission on Civil Society with more than a hundred civil society organisations because the charity sector works best when we work together. We now have begun to see the fruits of that engagement. Greg Clark MP (leading on Bill) and Nick Hurd MP have done a great job of listening to the Commission’s concerns.

So credit where it is due. Too often the sector can seem grudging when we achieve change. Or we turn a victory into defeat. So ACEVO is happy to acknowledge the major shift since this Bill was introduced.

We recognise that the government has listened and we welcome the amendments proposed. I thank Lord Harries of the Commission and its members (who include our ACEVO Chair, Lesley-Anne Alexander) for their excellent work in the last few months on the sector’s behalf.

Clearly, there remain outstanding issues with the bill. And we will continue to push for change. We would still like the government to consider removing staff costs from the bill’s restrictions. We must continue to make the argument against the proposed £10,000 cap on spending in one constituency by a charity or campaign group. But we believe that the commission has established a positive dialogue with government and we look forward to discussing these matters going forward.

 But our campaigners believe defeat is still likely in the House of Lords next week unless there are further concessions on the a2 key issues we have raised.

It all proves again just how much clout the Lords can wield with sufficient cross-party backing. Yesterday saw the 84th Government defeat in the Lords since 2010 (on the ‘criminalise annoyance’ plan), which given the Coalition’s increase in peers is all the more remarkable.

Our revising chamber is doing its work. And our charity world has risen to the challenge posed to our right to speak truth to power; another example of the danger that awaits any Government that attacks the charity sector. 

A new Dawn... But journeying hopefully.

So it’s the annual conference day and first off is the keynote speech by Dawn Austwick, 7 weeks into her new job as CEO of the Big Lottery Fund.

 She said she likes,

"Grantees with attitude". It’s important for funders to tell funders what they need or want. Good point and note to all applicants! She also said Social investment; needs to be driven by mission. Not money. Mission driven social investment will trade returns for mission. I think this is a lesson for Big Society Capital who really do need to think more about the value they put on unsecured lending.  That is what the sector needs. Not too many fancy new finance instruments, just straight forward loans. 

But the morning was probably stolen by Sandra Schrembri, St Barnabas house who talked of the trials of her transformation of a hostel in Soho Square into a members club for social leaders who will finance the work they do with the unemployed. ACEVO members can join at discount. And you should. It’s a great place (http://hosb.org.uk/).

Perhaps the most challenging and thought provoking was Matthew Taylor. I reproduce his Blog here. Well worth thinking about.

...However, I find myself booked in tomorrow to do two talks about leadership and change with the expectation that I use the RSA as some kind of case study.

It is gratifying that Action for Children and ACEVO think there is a success to be described (it may just be they’ve heard I am cheap and do jokes), but I will be admitting from the outset that my seven years here provide as many stories about what can go wrong and of how hard change can be as it is does exemplars of best practice. Nevertheless I am going to try out one way of conceptualising change, not so much as a description of what we have been doing here but more as a guide which might have helped me do things better had I used it from the start.

My suggestion is that purposive organisational change can be seen to have four stages: ‘basic inquiry’, ‘conventional alignment’, ‘existential inquiry’ and ‘transformational alignment’.  As this implies, the four stages comprise two pairs at lower and higher orders of ambition.

‘Basic inquiry’ describes the stage – often following the appointment of a new leader – when essential questions are asked about the organisation’s purpose, performance and fitness for purpose. This stage precedes change and so there is in our accelerating world a tendency for leaders to do it too quickly or superficially or to treat it as a process of confirming initial prejudices. Patience and humility are useful attributes if the leader is really to understand why it that certain patterns of thinking, acting and performing have become embedded: things which look functional may reveal themselves to be less so and things which seem otiose might on closer inspection have a deeper purpose which needs to be appreciated even if not preserved. It’s probably best not to emulate my first RSA staff meeting in which I said in nearly so many words ‘you’re all a bit rubbish but don’t worry I’m here to save you!’.

‘Conventional alignment’ describes the process whereby the leader tries to bring some clarity to the organisation’s purpose and aims and then seeks to align the organisation with those objectives. This is partly about desisting from things which don’t align and enhancing those which do, but also about capacities and competencies. An example of this for the RSA was the processes of engagement, conflict, investment and trial and error which followed the insight that the RSA Fellowship wanted to shift from being largely a social and recreational club to an integral part of delivering our charitable mission.

This stage will tend to lead to a substantial turnover of staff, indeed it is often what people think of when they talk about organisational change. It can be slow and difficult and when it has been at least partially accomplished there is an entirely understandable tendency to feel the job is done.

‘Existential inquiry’ describes the point at which an apparently well-functioning organisation comes to see that it is not in fact standing for or achieving the change (relevant to its mission) it most wants to see in the world. This is a deeper moment of reflection and calls for leaders to identify a profound challenge even though the rest of the organisation feels it has only just gone through a painful process of becoming fit for purpose. ‘But’ the leader says ‘for what purpose’?

An example here might be the head teacher of a school which has gone through basic inquiry, found out why it is not ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ and has done the tough things in the conventional alignment stage necessary to achieve that status. But then, after a summer break in which staff members have celebrated reaching the harbour of OFSTED approval, they return to a head who asks ‘we may have the seal of approval, but can we really say that we are transforming the life chances of pupils and inculcating a deep love of learning?’  At issue here is not just what the organisation does but its culture, ethic and imagination.

The RSA is in this stage right now as it undertakes a strategic review based on the conviction that we must see success in terms not of outputs or organisational health (in which terms we now do well) but substantive real world change.

‘Transformational alignment’ is a stage to which I aspire but which I can’t say I have ever managed to attain. It is the point at which the organisation does not need to be changed, nor much led in the conventional sense, because its culture is profoundly attuned with a powerful sense of purpose, one which not only drives high performance but creates an organisation-wide process of continuous self-improvement (which will, by the way, involve the ‘clumsy’ coming together of hierarchical, solidaristic and individualistic power).  This stage should be what leaders aspire to. If they achieve it they should enjoy it to the full if only because changes in context or fortune or the complacency and overreach promoted by success mean that sooner or later it will end.

The obvious questions posed by this schema are (and having written a thousand words I suspect I am by now talking to myself): why is it necessary to go through two loops, can’t one go straight to ‘existential inquiry’; and, how can I reasonably encourage leaders to pursue a state of ‘transformational alignment’ when I can’t actually say I have created or experienced it myself?

In reply to the first, existential inquiry is too profound and difficult to be accomplished while an organisation is failing to deliver on its narrower output goals. Indeed existential questioning may be a bad idea when the often thankless heavy lifting of ‘conventional alignment’ is under way.

The second question is harder: all I can say is that I have had from time to time had that sense of deep conviction of purpose combined with an openness to continuous inquiry and improvement, but it has been around one off projects or particular moments not at the level of a whole organisation. Anyway, to get through the hard graft of organisational change don’t we need to believe there might be something rather wonderful –albeit only temporary – at the end of it?

And let me leave you with a charming photo of me, William Shawcross and my Chair Lesley-Anne. Caption competition anyone?

Holding 43 Elizabeth 4!

What a way to start the week - holding a vellum parchment from 1601 in the House of Lords!

I am trying to write a history of charity. A not un-mammoth task. I spent some of the few months recovering from my recent Op looking at documents in the Bodleian Library. It’s a fascinating area of study, but I also find so many parallels with modern day charity. Many of our so-called new ideas and innovations have been tried before. Even in the 16th century, for example, they had discovered the power of social finance and made loans to budding entrepreneurs. We just invent new names for old ideas and then market them as brand and new and sparkling.

And it’s instructive to have a solid understanding of how charity law has evolved. After all in Elizabeth's day it was about finding money to redeem prisoners, build bridges and roads.The preamble to the Act contains a list of activities the State believed were useful for society's benefit and wanted to encourage giving. The list is the foundation of our modern definitions of charity which have evolved by analogy with this Act.

Here it is in all its glory:

"Relief of the aged, impotent, and poor people; maintenance of sick and maimed soldiers and mariners, schools of learning, free schools, and scholars in universities, repair of bridges, ports, havens, causeways, churches, seabanks, and highways, education and preferment of orphans, for or towards relief of stock, or maintenance for houses of correction, marriages of poor maids, supportation, aid, and help of young tradesmen, handicrafts-men, and persons decayed, relief or redemption of prisoners or captives, aide or ease of any poor inhabitants concerning payments of fifteens, setting out soldiers of soldiers and other taxes."

The definition of "charity" has often been a political hot potato. The commons PASC wants to define "public benefit" specifically. And recently the Chair of the Charity commission has suggested we have new "categories" of charities.

I have no objection to this debate, though I fail to see how far it advances anything useful. Its a bit like those debates on what we should call ourselves; third sector, voluntary sector, voluntary and community sector, charity, voluntary, community and social enterprise sector. All very interesting if you don't have anything better to do. What matters is what you achieve.

And I suspect a debate on categories of charity is headed in the same direction. How would you define the categories? And what purpose would that serve?

Mr Shawcross seems to have a bee in his bonnet about charities delivering services on contract to the State. He suggests they are in a different category from volunteer and non state-funded charities. But how would you define that? What proportion would you take? The majority of the more organised professional sector has to a larger or lesser extent some contract or grant income from the State. And it varies. So do you have a cut off?  Say 50%. But what happens when you loose a contract and so move below the threshold. Or win one and move above?

But more important is what would these categories be used for?  Is Mr Shawcross suggesting those with large contract income loose the benefits of charitable registration?

And if we have a category for contract delivery charities, then we will obviously need one for the public schools and large hospitals like Nuffield. If there were such a category I can imagine how easy it would then be for some to argue that group loses charitable benefits.

In any case the vast and glorious army of charities - some 160,000 of them - will defy some pen pushers attempt to push or pull them into a category. The sector is far too complex in its activities to be so categorised.

So I wish Mr Shawcross well with this. I just hope we don't waste any of the precious resources of the Commission on such an exercise.