Designing for Civil Society

Nonprofit support 'hubs' row spreads

Third Sector magazine is now really on to the controversy about specialist hubs to support the UK Government's Changeup plans to strengthen the voluntary and community (nonprofit) sectors. They have a story this week about the Governance hub.

Foundation for Good Governance researcher and spokeswoman Christine Morrison said Changeup is the wrong model because it imposes a centralised structure on a sector that is based on networks of support organisations, membership bodies, councils for voluntary service and local development agencies.
"There is little doubt that the Government's intentions are well-meaning - but unfortunately the model proposed for support is unlikely to work because it seeks to impose a top-down approach on a sector that thrives on diversity," she said.

The article references the Communities of Practice session we ran last week at a conference with Christine to demonstrate alternative approaches.
Third Sector also reports that the Home Office has stepped into the row about the IT hub that I wrote about earlier.
From the latter piece it is clear that the Home Office is still determined to get one proposal from the sector for each hub, and they see competing consortia as unseemly squabbling. The point Christine Morrison is making is that we need some diversity.
Don't hold your breath for rapprochement on the 'one bid' front, though.

ICT Consortium project manager Nicky Thompson, who works for the NCVO, said: "The consortium has always welcomed, and would still welcome, input from other organisations with expertise to share. The Home Office has shown confidence that the ICT Consortium was best placed to take this work forward, and indeed funded us to do so."

Should social researchers practice good practice too?

Should social researchers reflect, in their methods, the cultures and practices they study? And in today's fast-changing world is there much value for policy-makers in so-called 'best practice' drawn from yesterday's case studies?
No doubt these questions are, in themselves, a major field of academic study. However, I received some practical exposure to the issues through an invitation to a think tank seminar this afternoon on Community Governance in LSPs (I'll try and explain that later). My conclusion? A bit of practice what you preach (or study) wouldn't hurt if the aim is public benefit rather than Yet Another Research Report.

Nonprofits fall out over tech support

In my experience nonprofit organisations can be just a tiny bit combative and territorial among themselves, while showing the world a smile of compassion and collaboration. It comes from having to compete to get so much of their money from funders, sponsors and donors.
The UK Government isn't helping in the way that it is handling funds for the Changeup programme to improve the way nonprofits deliver services, with its plans for specialist 'hubs'. An acrimonious dispute has now surfaced between two consortia seeking to deliver technology support to other nonprofits. I wrote about this in June, and since then matters seem to have got worse rather than better. Third Sector magazine reveals that nine organisations have complained to the Home Office about the way that the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) is behaving.

Forming communities of practice fast? First visit the toy store.

Can 200 people work out what they are interested in, find others with shared concerns, form groups, and decide what to do next - all in 35 minutes? I now know the answer. Yes, knowledge sharing by milling about does work.... if you have a few props from the toy store,
As I wrote earlier under that heading, my colleague Drew Mackie and I were offered the chance of trying this collective speed-dating at a conference on nonprofit governance last Friday. A Government Minster, scheduled to keynote, had pulled out at short notice - probably to spend more time helping plan this week's Labour conference. An understandable emergency call, though inconvenient. However, instead of substituting another exhortation from the lectern, conference organiser Christine Morrison bravely asked us to mobilise the collective wisdom of the conference participants. Well, do as best we could, after lunch, in the slot usually reserved for rest and reflection.
In the event the participants were magnificent. Here's how it went.

Knowledge sharing by milling about

I'm particularly looking forward to a conference on nonprofit governance next week where my colleague Drew Mackie and I will run a couple of sessions aimed at helping volunteers serving on management committees and Boards think through their responsibilities and the challenges they may face. As I posted earlier, we'll be greatly helped by a new 10-point plan for running an effective organisation produced by conference organisers, the Foundation for Good Governance
Earlier in the year I worked with a Foundation team led by Christine Morrison on a review of nonprofit governance for the Home Office, and you can see the results blogged here. The review was heavy-weight research, but for the conference Christine and colleagues wanted something a bit more fun. For one session we've developed a governance 'game', in which participants invent tough scenarios then role play solutions. I expect personality conflicts between chair and executive director, misappropriation of funds, unfair staff dismissals and worse.

Let the people decide - when they understand it

On his Neighbourhoods blog Kevin Harris alerts us to publication by the UK Government of its planning policy statement (PPS12) on local development frameworks and says despite the dry title "it's historic stuff so sit up straight".
The interesting point is that local councils will now have to prepare a Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) which:
"sets out the standards to be achieved by the local authority in involving the community in the preparation, alteration and continuing review of all local development documents and planning applications. The statement should be a clear public statement enabling the community to know how and when they will be involved in the preparation of local development documents and how they will be consulted on planning applications."

Ten tips for good governance (whether for profit or not)

The UK-based Foundation for Good Governance has produced a 10-point plan for running an effective organisation. Although intended for nonprofits, a glance at corporate misdeeds featured daily on business pages suggests the tips may have some relevance to companies too. Here's the short version, with full text available among the Foundation's research reports - or download pdf directly here. The Foundation is encouraging distribution under a Creative Commons licence.

Governance is more than Board behaviours

Good governance for nonprofits will not be achieved by simply importing recommendations about 'proper' Board behaviour from the private sector, suggests David Walker writing in yesterday's Guardian
He quotes Liberal Democrat peer Andrew Phillips and charity lawyer as saying: "Some of most dynamic and wonderful charities I have to deal with have crap governance on certain managerial and academic views.
"But some of the most conformist and risk-free have got everything perfect in governance terms."
The broader point to emerge is that governance is not just about moderating power relationships between owners and executives (as in some private sector governance models).
As David Walker remarks: "The key question is ownership. In the public and voluntary sectors, ownership is a mystery. Who owns Oxfam or Shelter? If social tenants owned their own homes, they would no longer be tenants. It suits trustees of public bodies to emphasise their independence, saying, "We are not beholden to ministers or councillors." But does that mean they control their organisation's assets?
"Phillips is impatient with theological discussion about boards, arguing that, in practice, charity trustees know their job is to ensure the public interest is upheld and to get on with it. Besides, we don't know much about how corporate boards operate, in any sector, nor about their effectiveness."
These issues and more were explored extensively in a recent Home Office-funded study by the Foundation for Good Governance, in which I played a small part. The full report, and evidence taken, is now available here.

What's your law?

No sooner had I posted an item about the Community Networker's Oath than I spot Dave Pollard alerting us to a site featuring one-liners from people offering their alternatives to Newton's Law... or maybe Murphy's. After featuring - among other's:
Malcolm Gladwell (Law of Learned Helplessness): The things we have learned to fear are much less likely to occur than we fear they are (like being a victim of terrorists). We are dangerously ignorant of the things that are much more likely to occur, the things we should fear, and be doing something about (like global warming).
Esther Dyson's Law of Optimal Information Disclosure: Do ask. Don't lie.
Alan Mulally: (cited by Karl Sabbagh) The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has occurred.
... he offers some of his own
Pollard's Law of Knowledge: Trust your instincts. Instinctive knowledge is both more reliable and more rooted in reality than either moral knowledge (what is 'right') or rational knowledge (what is 'reasonable').
Pollard's Laws of Change:
(1) Technology (the application of innovation) changes quickly, because it responds to what is possible, whereas culture (belief and behaviour) changes slowly, because it responds only to what is needed.
(2) Self-organized communities are dynamic and change spontaneously, peer-to-peer, by consensus, whereas hierarchical organizations are intransigent and change reluctantly, and only when forced by disruptive innovation.
(3) Therefore, if you want to change the world, either (a) use technology to end-run cultural resistance, or (b) drive the change through self-organized communities, and undermine the hierarchies.
You can find the original site here at the Edge Foundation.

How to start an unsatisfactory engagement

John Moore neatly encapsulates How to start a relationship on the basis of manipulation by describing the way advertising agencies get their work. The creatives have to compete in pitching a 'big idea' to clients, spending a great deal and anxious about their hit rate. Clients think they are getting a lot of free ideas, but end up paying a premium to cover wasted effort elsewhere. John reflects that "starting agency relationships this way virtually guarantees dysfunction."
His item prompted me to think about the way that public bodies choose consultants for community engagement and civil renewal projects, and the resulting dysfunction that can occur and affect a wider range of interests.