Steps to a resilient community

I wrote recently about what a blitz spirit might look like if it did not depend for its existence on having an enemy – another country, the environment, or other people threatening our common security.

Here is one potential answer.

United Maidens is a Camden-based group of women on a local council estate. They have formed a self-help group to support each other through personal debt problems. Their “Money Wednesday” sessions cover tax credits, benefits, budgeting, prioritising debt repayment and accessing job training.

“What we have found is that residents are empowered by the responsibility of looking out for one another.” So says the secretary of United Maidens, employed by Camden Council.

I hope he is right – I would rather have heard this direct from the Maidens themselves.

But nevertheless I recognise the spirit at work: that of giving rather than receiving, and of an increase in self-worth as a result of being valued by other people. This is perhaps one element (there must be many more, of course) a resilient collaborative community?

A new blitz spirit?

James Lovelock was interviewed last year for The Guardian. Lovelock proposed what has come to be called the Gaia hypothesis, in which he suggests that the earth maintains a complex interacting – and self-sustaining – ecological system. He recently wrote The Revenge of Gaia which argues that it is now too late to do anything other than make a managed retreat in the face of anticipated significant habitat changes across the world.

In the interview, Lovelock compares the current age to the second world war. Once the war began, “everyone got excited, they loved the things they could do, it was one long holiday … so when I think of the impending crisis now, I think in those terms. A sense of purpose – that’s what people want”.

I’ve thought a great deal about this point of view. Even since last year we already have a more purposeful response to our global context, though it still feels far from purposeful enough – or universal enough.

In England there is a fondness for what is called ‘the blitz spirit’ of the second world war, a coming-together of the nation in the face of adversity. There are definite aspects of that spirit which I would wish for today – a sense of common purpose as Lovelock identifies; the sacrifice of individual priorities in favour of the bigger goal; and concentrated effective action.

So we need a good crisis, is that all?

This is where I hesitate. It’s important to realise that in national terms the blitz was a time of great danger, for the country and the population. Lots of people died in the blitz; and a climate crisis would bring much more universal suffering than the casualties of world war two bombings.

More disturbing, the blitz spirit was characterised by having an enemy – the Axis powers. In a climate crisis, there are only two obvious enemies: nature (and what a psychotic position that would be, reinforcing our already damaging attitude to the environment); or, anyone else who threatens our own security – whether they be our neighbours fighting over land or food, or the climate migrants who reach our shores.

As is being demonstrated so clearly in the run-up to Copenhagen, the significant players are still behaving as though climate change is a matter of predominantly national interest.

So my question is, if a blitz spirit is needed in the future, how might we find our way through to a position of compassion and solidarity – and without the need for an enemy?

Our global context

Our global context and organisational relevance.

Given that many of the scientific predictions for our global context may well become reality (as they already are in some parts of the world), what would it be like for an organisation to live and work out of this awareness?

I know for myself the pain I felt when waking up to the global context. I know the traps and hindrances to working out my own journey.

Yet I firmly believe that organisations need to live in the awareness of our global context. At the moment it’s a luxury; in the future it may become essential; and if the climate, oil and population predictions are accurate, we will need collaboration on a scale we do not practice at present, nor may not even know how to create. Whatever our work, climate change will be affecting what we do and perhaps sooner than we dare to think.

Is there any interest in thinking what is likely to happen in the communities or societies over the next 30 years which your organisations works with, as the impacts of the global context begin to become self-evident? Is there interest in working out what these organisations, and the people they works with, need to understand or to engage with to be more ready for what may be arriving? Is there interest and capacity in you or your organisation to begin working out these things?

In essence: What is the nature of our global accountability? We can improve our accountability to funders, to ourselves, to service-recipients; but to the planet? Given what we know, are we:

• Organised in an appropriate way?

• Doing appropriate work with the right people?

• Preparing ourselves and those we work with for what could be essential tools for the future?

• Making a business case for our organisation’s future in finding time to work on these issues?

And perhaps you have questions that connect to the questions I’ve posed here?

So what’s emerging?

A living inquiry, in which I am seeking organisations and individuals wondering what organisations or communities might look like if it lived in the awareness of the global context may well be coming our way.

Over recent weeks, in public speaking opportunities, within existing contracts, and in accidental or created conversations, I have begun to articulate some of the above thoughts, and to test out whether others are thinking on similar lines.

Some of my openings have met a blank wall; others, a polite welcome and no more.

I’m also receiving positive responses from some people. This list of responders may turn into a potential network, which one day might be gathered in a room together, to explore questions of mutual interest. Perhaps there’s a research project in there somewhere; or at the very least a sharing of experience and insight. Some of the people I’m in touch with have networks with others who are also thinking along these lines.

I don’t claim any answers, of course; but I have experience of facilitating and participating in processes in which supportive mutual inquiry are possible.

My interest is in walking a pilgrimage with those who want to walk similar questions of their own.

Please contact me john@framework.org.uk or leave a comment if this chimes with anything in you. And if you’d like to be kept informed of developments, the easiest way is to sign up to this blog here: http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=wordpress%2FJKYo , as (certainly in these early stages) this is where I anticipate putting the material.

Thank you.

A post-consortia world?

I attended a consortia development workshop yesterday – with thanks to York Council for Voluntary Service for funding the event – to explore Voluntary Action Sheffield’s Toolkit for creating legal consortia of voluntary sector organisations.

(A quick overview if you’re unfamiliar: third sector organisations are under active encouragement – pressure, one might say – to merge or create consortia, to be able to compete in the free market as grants are replaced by contracts. To give an idea of this encouragement, one report published by the Department of Health is entitled “No excuses. Embrace partnership now. Step towards change!” It is written by the Third Sector Commissioning Task Force, set up “to promote a sound commercial relationship between commissioners of health and social care services and the third sector”.)

Key funds which support the start-up costs of consortia are coming to an end – the Modernsation Fund, and the Consortia Fund. Without non-philanthropic financial support it’s hard to see how the all-new sector-wide, thematic consortia (including sometimes as many as fifty or more member organisations – example here) can continue to come into existence.

Which suggest s that organisations may revert to smaller, more ‘traditional’ collaborations created to bid for newly-published contracts. Yet all the evidence is that these quick-fix consortia don’t work because they don’t have time to build the strong relationships needed to stick through the thick and thin of joint contract delivery.

Best advice seems to be, then, to build networks and collaborations based on existing mutual trust and experience of working together – which strengthen your support amongst your peers and provide a seedbed of potential partners should bids arise . But who’s got the time to do that? And can these types of collaborations be large enough – and sustainable enough – to successfully bid for the fewer, larger and more complex contracts that commissioners are now generating?

In the third sector research that Moira Halliday and I conducted for the Gloucestershire Infrastructure Group, we wondered what a post-commissioning world might look like – after grants, and now contracts, then what?

Perhaps the question instead is what might come post-consortia? Are there forms of collaborating which offer a more service-user responsive way of developing and providing services?

Podcast: mediation services and our global context

I spoke at Mediation Yorkshire’s Annual General Meeting earlier this month. I’ve been associated with Mediation Yorkshire since I managed a community mediation service in York in 1996. As a freelance consultant I’ve worked several times with them, most recently on supervision skills training.

My talk touches on: trends in volunteering; the contribution that mediation services can make to community development; and how all organisations – not just mediation services – might choose to respond to the global context we all face, of climate change and increasingly limited resources.

I believe we need to collaborate on a far greater scale than we currently do now; and that organisations can play a key role in preparing service users for the societal changes that may soon confront us.

Length of audio: 21 minutes, including an introduction from Alison Crouch, Chair of Mediation Yorkshire.

Protecting the global commons: citizens do it better than economics

The winners of this year’s Nobel prize for economics have rewarded research into effective governance which lies outside traditional economic models.

In particular, laureate Elinor Ostrom has shown how community-driven projects can be more efficient than privatisation or nationalisation. User-managed examples of common property – rivers, woods, lakes etc – derive better outcomes than predicted by standard [economic] theories.

I have long thought this to be the case, but had never thought to wonder whether it could be proven.

Olstrom makes the link between citizens organising to protect an important asset, and climate change: “A lot of people are waiting for more international co-operation … there is this assumption that there are public officials who are geniuses, and that the rest of us are not.”

Links:

Guardian news article

Nobel prize committee citation for Elinor Ostrom

 

New contract published by York Council – closing date 12 June 1833.

Wanted: Scavengers for the sweeping and cleansing of the streets.

A near-universal change in Western non-profit sectors has been a shift from grants to contracts for service delivery. Many Third Sector organisations are working out how – or even whether – to compete against their peers and the private sector. For many this has been a difficult journey; and there is much criticism of the shift to this contract culture and the frequent exclusion of the service-recipient’s voice in setting and awarding contracts.

So I was delighted to see this contract notice in York’s Castle Museum, which shows us the process is not as new or as traumatic as we might think.

What we would now call the Invitation to Tender requires you to present yourself at the Commissioners Office on a Wednesday afternoon, with two sureties – references- to confirm your ability to do the work.

The final sentence now falls well outside good procurement practice: “The Terms will be proposed and Contracts entered into at the same time” – on awarding of the contract.

It’s fascinating to imagine what the scene would have been like on that Wednesday afternoon. How many bidders turned up? Was there competition for different wards? How did the Commissioning Officer make their decision? Were the sureties properly investigated before the contract was awarded?

There have been many complaints in recent years about not enough time given to respond to invitations to tender. But if you wanted to be a scavenger in York, get used to this: The notice was published on 4 June, with closing date and allocation of contracts 12 June – and work to begin on 14 June!

We can be in danger of idolising an ideal past. However, the present – how ever bad it is – is only a past that someone in the future is yearning to get back to. Maybe 1833 wasn’t so perfect after all?

Encouraging sustainable behaviour

What helps people adopt sustainable behaviours?

It has long been known that information is not enough when it comes to campaigns on obesity, smoking, teenage pregnancies etc – and the same is true for promoting efforts against climate change.

Research suggests that some messages work better than others (http://coinet.org.uk/news/2009-10-06/psychology-sustainable-behaviour). By way of summary:

1. People don’t worry about things they can’t see (or even imagine). Doomsday scenarios don’t work. More succesful are messages which talk about pollution, or about the things they care about: their health, their family, their happiness.
2. Sometimes people know they have to change but don’t know how to. Community Based Social Marketing (see also this explainer), created in response to non-effective “information-only” campaigns, identifies a goal, behaviour to support that goal, and situations that will trigger the behaviour. If… then… For example, to change to catching the bus on Fridays: IF it’s Thursday evening, THEN set the alarm for earlier next morning; IF an umbrella is by the door, THEN it won’t matter if it’s raining, etc.
3. Use social norms positively. If people are told that their behaviour is socially approved (rather than simply receiving a pat on the back) they are more likely to continue it.
4. Those who make a public commitment are more likely to stick to it in the longer-term. Even a sticker in a window or on the phone makes a difference. And those who feel supported by friends and colleagues are more likely to change their behaviour than those who try to go it alone.
5. Financial interest can prompt pro-environment behaviours – but it won’t on its own make people be pro-environment at other times if financial reasons are absent. It makes people view themselves as ‘the sort of person who saves money’; they don’t switch to thinking of themselves as ‘the kind of person who acts sustainably’.

I find this an interesting list. I could imagine saying: I work with people who are responding to what’s happening in their communities, and in the places they go on holiday to. If you’re interested in reducing your energy use, then come along to our “sharing ideas” event. And so on. There are much better ways than these sentences, of course; this is just a start for me.

I’m also interested to learn whether these type of messages work in other situations too – for example, inviting members of an organisation to engage in a change process or a conflict resolution process (“This is about helping make the office a happier place…”; “Tell us about the changes you’d like to see…”).

Can you comment from your own experience with organisations?

From parenting to management (5): Saying yes or saying no

From parenting …

We have the patter of tiny feet here in the house – not another child, but a hamster in its cage. After four months of sustained lobbying, which convinced us that our daughter would bring the commitment to care for a pet, I gave in and we bought her one for her birthday.

Gave in? On one level it does feel like surrender. I object to inviting more clutter into my life – bedding, food, the smells, and what feels a burdensome task of making a relationship with Isabelle. I resent too that I have participated in an industry which has called this animal into existence with all the associated use of earth’s resources.

And yet, we already see how much pleasure our daughter gets from looking after Isabelle; and we are confident that she will learn from the experience of her responsibilities. It is a chance for her to further her own development.

To management …

How often must managers agree to something to which they only have partial commitment? We might see the benefit to staff or even to the wider organisation, but also too clearly our own personal inconvenience. Examples might include: releasing staff to go on training courses or personal development initiatives; signing up to a Cycle-to-Work scheme; funding an annual staff party; or adapting the running of the office to mitigate climate change.

In all cases, there is a bigger picture – or perhaps more accurately, competing pictures. Short-term disruption against potential long-term gain. Immediate deadlines against strengthening staff morale. Use of resources against increased capacity.

The challenge for the awake manager is to choose between the “big pictures” which confront them. In my own experience, it is difficult sometimes to know how to place a value on immediate outcomes and potential outcomes. But when I was a manager, and I started from preferring my own convenience, or the wish solely to avoid extra trouble or decisions, then I was in danger of not exercising my responsibilities properly.

Measuring change: who decides what’s measured?

I have spent the summer and early autumn helping two organisations improve their ability to reflect on and learn from their experience. Both pieces of work have involved how to measure change in the real world.

The first was designing an impact assessment framework for International Service. They do capacity-building with local organisations in five countries around the world, and they are interested to know more about the difference that this capacity building is making in the lives of their partners’ beneficiaries. That’s quite a long impact chain, from sending a development worker to discerning how (hopefully) improved services are improving individual lives.

International Service is fifty-six years old this year. A much younger organisation, the Newcastle Conflict Resolution Network, is planning its activities over the next twelve to eighteen months, and I have been invited to help design their logframe. Ultimately we’re hoping this will help evaluate their impact, because of the attention they are giving now to:

• What are our realistic objectives?
• What are the changes that we want to see and measure in the future? (indicators)
• Where will we look to find any evidence of those changes? (the means of verification)

My input into these organisations has been informed by the latest CDRA Nugget – if you’re not signed up, these occasional nuggets of insight and information are well worth reading.

This latest nugget I paraphrase here as: those involved in designing impact assessment frameworks (oops! – that includes me…) must remember the most important lesson of all: initiatives work best if they are designed and implemented with those who will be the recipients. Note the word ‘recipients’ rather than ‘beneficiaries’ – let’s not assume that everything our organisations do turns out for the good.

And so I am helpfully reminded that thinking how to assess the effect of one’s work requires you – me – to ask the recipients: what would you value as a positive impact? And how might that impact be measured? That I am not asked these questions as a recipient of local or government services here in the UK does not diminish the obligation to ensure they are asked through the organisations I work with.