Are you sitting comfortably? If so, then your foundation might need to rethink its approach to philanthropy. This was the message from President of the Ford Foundation Darren Walker, as he addressed the audience at LSE’s evening event ‘Investing in Equality: the role of capital and justice in addressing inequality’. The Ford Foundation is one of the largest and most influential foundations in the US, and has been committed to advancing human welfare and reducing inequality for more than 80 years.
Uncomfortable Truths: The New Gospel of Wealth
Walker explained that modern philanthropy has largely been motivated by generosity. He referred to American industrialist Andrew Carnegie’s 1889 essay ‘The Gospel of Wealth’, which has had a considerable influence on modern philanthropy. Carnegie felt that it was the moral duty of the wealthy to redistribute their surplus wealth in a responsible and generous manner.
However, Walker argued that generosity is not enough, and today’s philanthropy must instead be driven by the quest for justice. Generosity, he argued, allows those who are privileged to remain comfortable in their giving, and insulated from some of the uncomfortable truths in society. Justice-driven philanthropy on the other hand requires the privileged to become a little uncomfortable. It involves tackling structural inequality and bringing about systemic change. This is what Walker calls ‘The New Gospel of Wealth’. This approach was in part inspired by Martin Luther King Junior’s comment that“Philanthropy is commendable, but it must not cause the philanthropist to overlook the circumstances of economic injustice which make philanthropy necessary.”
Changing the Narrative
Walker also stressed the importance of looking critically at the culture, structures and practices within our own institutions. Foundations excel at the rhetoric of change and progress but are often less good at putting this into practice in their own organisations. For example, when it comes to hiring practices, there are significant hurdles to overcome around diversity and the inclusion of individuals with ‘authentic knowledge’ that comes from having lived experience. He believes it is important to acknowledge our own privilege and biases, and reflect on where our institutions fall short.
Despite highlighting the many injustices which make philanthropy necessary, Walker remains positive about the future. He warned against promoting a narrative of hopelessness which renders people vulnerable and insecure. Instead he proposed challenging prevailing narratives, empowering communities and giving voice to the disadvantaged. To do this foundations must continue to invest in the three I’s: individuals, institutions and ideas. Crucially, we should not shy away from the uncomfortable truths in society, at the same time as addressing the underlying causes of inequality.
There is a scene in the popular comedy series ‘Father Ted’ where the hapless Father Dougal is on an aeroplane staring for some time at a big red button above which a sign reads ‘Do Not Press’. Father Dougal is sweating like toast on a worktop but not even the complete absence of knowledge of what might happen next prevents him from pressing that button. Getting involved in social investment was a bit like that …
A random conversation with one of our older service users one wintry afternoon in early 2014 gave me an idea which, by the time I had driven the 55 mile journey home later that day, had implanted itself firmly in my mind as ‘A Thoroughly Brilliant Idea’. Julie (not her real name) was in her 50s, and had fled a 15 year abusive relationship literally with only the clothes she wore. She left shortly after the emotional, financial and psychological abuse she had endured turned into serious physical violence. Julie went to her local refuge, but her husband found out where she was so for her own safety, and that of the other residents, Julie was referred out of her area, to EVA. We don’t like turning anyone away at EVA so we gave Julie a bed space in one of our two existing properties that are geared towards accommodating women aged up to 24. It soon became apparent that the mix of ages could be problematic for a number of reasons. Most importantly, the older women were becoming the ‘mums’, which was great for the youngsters but meant that the older women were more focussed on the younger women’s welfare rather than their own recovery. We needed to create a Safe House space for older women, with a Specialist Support Worker dedicated to empowering and enabling women towards independence. This needed funding for staff, funding for the cost of a refurb to a new property, the deposit on a house purchase and installation of security equipment, and a loan to purchase a suitably located house. Simple, right?
This is how the ‘45+ Project’ was born …
By the time I arrived at work the following morning, I had convinced myself it was going to happen, I just needed several hundred thousand quid…. So, applications were made to two potential funders and after several phone calls, visits and emails, an application was made to Charity Bank to invest in EVA’s purchase of the UK’s first Safe House for women aged over 45. It was important for EVA that our Investment Manager understood our M.O. We wanted someone who ‘got’ why we wanted to do it and how it fitted in with our current practice and future plans, as well as the social value of the project.
I won’t lie to you … there is a LOT of paperwork. And you think you’ve got it right. But you haven’t. It goes back and forth, back and forth. Understandably, due diligence processes are wise and necessary. You need evidence of good governance, robust financial management systems, flawless accounting history and a credible Board of Trustees … oh, did I mention them yet? Get your Board on board! And take professional advice. My top tips?
- Know your subject/theme (there will be lots of questions)
- Research the need (the market, target group, current offer locally)
- Be realistic about your ability to service the loan (can you afford it?!!)
Oh …. and be prepared to work more hours than usual (I don’t know any CEO who DOESN’T already do this, but add a few more hours on anyway). There is no doubt that pulling together all these elements is almost a full-time job in itself, and there were times when I found myself looking at my Finance Manager and saying, as I wiped a tear from my eye and some of that toast-sweat from my own brow ‘’please just remind me why we’re doing this?’’
Fast forward around seven months … all three stakeholders were asking if the OTHER two stakeholders had made a decision. I found myself saying ‘’will ONE of you PLEASE say ‘yes’!’’ And they did, one by one, until they all dove-tailed nicely in the late Summer of 2014. Forms were signed, timescales agreed, funds were drawn down, and we proudly took possession of the keys to our soon-to-be-fabulously-renovated Safe House. Building work began (more anxiety and toast-sweat) and we finally opened on Monday 1 June 2015.
By Friday of that same week, we were full.
We have remained at almost 100% capacity ever since. The project attracted much local and national media attention and highlighted the issues surrounding the often hidden victims of domestic abuse as it is usually portrayed as only a young women’s matter. It isn’t. EVA is proud to have won three runner-up and two winning awards in 2016 for the ’45+ Project’ including Charity Bank’s ‘Greatest Impact’ Award.
Two years later and, like the impending second-time Mum, I forgot all about the anxiety, pain and anguish of childbirth the first time round and decided to do it all over again, having convinced myself the end result is worth it. After all, it can’t have been THAT BAD … can it?
We are now on the home stretch of purchasing a fourth Safe House property, due to open in early 2018, but my Finance Manager has threatened to leave if I ever suggest buying another house…
Oh … the big red button? Father Dougal dumped the plane’s fuel supply and they were forced to rely on a novelty sticky-tape dispenser to save them. EVA’s fuel tank, thankfully, remains undamaged.
Richinda Taylor, CEO, EVA Women’s Aid, [email protected], www.evawomensaid.org.uk, Facebook: Eva’s House, Twitter: @evawomensaid1
CLES joined forces with Friends Provident Foundation and Barrow Cadbury Fund to deliver fringe events at three party conferences this year. CLES has a longstanding interest in this area, with a growing range of work across the UK and beyond. It seems as though in many places we are in the midst of a new energy, where local communities, local government and commercial players are seeking and developing antidotes to economic development, which all too often fails to deliver the social and environmental outcomes required. Specifically, this includes work on ‘good local economies’ (with Friends Provident Foundation) and work on anchor institutions (with Barrow Cadbury Trust) in Birmingham.
Focussing on building local economies at these fringe events, the different political perspectives on the topic were always going to be interesting. And participation from MPs and party members from all three parties told us a lot about how this theme is received, how high up it is on agendas, and its potential for being developed in any meaningful way.
Judging from the lively debate and discussion generated by around 170 people attending all three events (often in a packed Fringe Programme), the subject of local economies is clearly of some interest, despite the different slant and direction of parties and party members. At the Liberal Democrat party conference the panel included Simon Bowkett (CEO of Exeter CVS), Baroness Janke and Cllr Gerald Vernon Jackson (Leader of Portsmouth Liberal Democrats). This event focused on devolution, role of local government, and its relationship with the social sector. The nature and number of questions from the floor and the ensuing discussion demonstrated clearly that local government has a key role to play in enabling a social dimension to the economy and promoting local supply chains. However, there was also a sense that local government needed to be ‘set free’ from Whitehall, so that it has more of its own ‘financial control’, can be a more effective economic player, and play a role in investing in the local economy. And as Chair of these events I sensed very clearly that what was needed was a ‘democratic devolution’ with devolution going stronger and deeper, than is presently the case.
The Labour Party conference fringe event had contributions from Cllr Matthew Brown (Preston City Council and with whom CLES had worked closely on a previous piece of work on anchor institutions ‘Progressing Community Wealth Building through Anchor Institutions’ and Heather Wakefield (Head of Local Government, Unison, and who was also a member of the Fawcett Society commission on women and local government). There was a rich discussion around the definition and reality of ‘new local economics’. Overall, there was a sense that there are many good things going on, but that we need to start small, experiment, and spread the good stories. Matthew Brown described the pioneering work in Preston, highlighted a suite of activities, including opening up more of local procurement to local suppliers across six major city Anchor Institutions, facilitating municipal energy as well as the growth of cooperatives. Heather Wakefield picked up the theme of greater social justice, and the role of ‘economic decency’ especially relating to women in employment, social care and the care economy more generally. Discussion took us into infrastructure investment, including the need to see social investment as of equal importance to hard infrastructure.
The Conservative party conference fringe had contributions from Kirsty McHugh (Employment Related Services Association) and Andrew O’Brien (Charity Finance Group). Here there was a very different focus on vocational skills and the importance of a confluence between public, private and social economies. Discussion was broad- ranging, but tellingly discussion kept returning to the importance of place, particularly the cross sector inter-dependencies which come together in place. And there was a recognition that the voluntary and community sector had a key role to play within the supply chain.
At all the party conferences, there was more discussion than usual around the role of the state and the market than at previous Party Conferences I’ve been to. And across all the parties there was a palpable sense that the centrist liberal economic model frame was under greater scrutiny and/or being questioned than ever before. What came out loud and clear from these fringes was that the local economy has a key role in this new questioning. There is no doubt that many of the elements needed to grow this local economic agenda are in place and can be built upon.
Convenience is great when all others things are equal. Making services easy to access is important. But not if it compromises the values of the service itself. Our new report suggests that video justice may threaten access to justice.
Video courts (where defendants appear on video into court from prisons and police stations) have been presented as a huge step forward in convenience, and thus access to justice. It is true that prisoners on video avoid the apparently disgusting “sweat box” vans, and hours waiting in a court cell for a fifteen minute appearance. Vans transporting prisoners regularly arrive at court late, thus delaying hearings and sometimes keeping witnesses waiting. And the inconvenience prisoners fear most is that they will be transferred to a completely new prison at the end of the court day. So for prisoners, video courts are definitely more convenient. As well as (maybe) saving the courts service money.
But is anything lost for the gain in convenience? A potentially huge impact is on genuine access to justice. As it is, defendants frequently feel excluded from our complex criminal justice system. Good advocates are the gatekeepers to that system – they advise and support their clients and articulate their defence. Video courts jeopardise and compromise that relationship. There are technical problems which mean that defendants trying to talk to their lawyer over video can’t hear or see well, and the service often breaks down. The fifteen minute time slots allowed for consultations are not nearly long enough, particularly when it is the first meeting between lawyer and client. The Lammy report highlighted that defendants from BAME communities too often distrust the legal profession. Our research suggests video justice is a recipe for increasing that distrust.
“On those occasions when the video link works, we have very limited time. We often use a lot of it shouting for the custody staff at the other end to hear us on the video screen in the video room, and then come in and speak to us. When the defendant is produced on the other end, he seems remote, and I often find I can’t be sure if he understands my empathy/sympathy/other emotions which are essential to cultivating a working relationship in this very difficult circumstance” (criminal lawyer)
Access to justice means ensuring that defendants understand and can participate in their own criminal justice process. This is challenging in the best of circumstances, given we often put defendants in a secure dock, and use complex procedures and language. There is evidence that forcing or encouraging defendants to appear on video compromises their effective participation. Respondents to our survey, including magistrates, were concerned that being on video changed defendants’ behaviour in two ways, both negative.
“You can only see their face [on video] and there is little interaction. In my experience unless you have time with the young person to prepare, it is very hard to tell the difference between surly teenage behaviour, a total lack of confidence and/or significant learning difficulties and a lack of understanding ” (YOT officer)
In some cases, being remote made defendants feel they were not part of the proceedings and disengage. In other cases, being remote made defendants frustrated, and robbed them of the ability to gauge the atmosphere of the room and the impact of their behaviour. Lawyers said defendants were more likely to swear and walk out. Those with mental health problems, learning difficulties and/or autism are doubly disadvantaged, particularly if their disability is “hidden”.
Without effective participation there is no access to justice. And without evidence, we have no real idea how great is the negative (or positive) impact of video hearings on the participation of defendants. Prison to court video links have been running for 17 years. In that time no in-depth research has been done on the impact of video on defendants’ participation, or on the outcome of their cases. Nor has anyone challenged the convenience argument. If travelling to court is inconvenient, why not improve the journey rather than abolish the physical court hearing?
Three years ago, six projects set out to demonstrate the effectiveness of a ‘whole pathway’ approach to young adults involved in crime – from point of arrest to release from prison. Manchester Metropolitan University’s (MMU) independent evaluation of this ‘T2A Pathway’, published today, tells the story of these projects from design to delivery during a time when local services faced unprecedented turmoil and austerity.
It highlights the extraordinary resilience, flexibility and skill of voluntary sector organisations in meeting the needs of society’s most vulnerable people, turning young lives around and pulling them back from the brink of a life of crime, self-harm, addiction and, for many, an early death.
A distinct approach to young adults that is tough on crime
What the T2A Pathway delivered was unequivocally “tough on crime”. There’s nothing soft about intervening to calm down a young man wielding a samurai sword in a park full of children. There’s nothing fluffy about coming to the aid of a brain-injured young man who, every day, sits naked on a bridge and threatens to thrown himself off. It’s not a charitable nicety to secure a safe place to live for a teenage mother and her new-born child who are both at high risk of sexual and physical abuse.
Commissioning services for 16-25 year olds that enable them to address their behaviour and turn their lives around is not do-gooding – it’s a high-return investment. No other age group is more likely to desist from crime, and no other group of adults has as much life still ahead of them. All of the 414 young people supported by the projects were causing harm to their communities (three quarters already had criminal records) and even more harm to themselves.
The evaluation is further evidence of the unmatchable value to people with complex needs of relationship-based, intensive support. This doesn’t mean services that are either high-cost or slow – quite the opposite. Services were described as “quicker” and “tailor made”, in comparison to statutory provision.
Benefits to other agencies
Of course, the work of projects like these benefits criminal justice agencies – reducing offending, avoiding breach and increasing compliance – all big wins for the police, courts, probation and prisons. It saves money, reduces crime and, perhaps most persuasive, saves these agencies precious time. As a police borough commander put it to me in conversation, “these projects help us spend more time catching bad guys”.
Yet it’s a direct benefit to other agencies too – mental health services (many of which have raised their thresholds to unreachable heights for young people) won’t have to pick up the pieces of acute crises; social care and child protection services won’t have to take as many children into care.
Gender and race
Nearly a third of the young adults supported by the projects were female, and one project was women-only. These teenage and young adult women had even more needs than the young men: 63% had experienced abuse, rape or domestic violence, and 15% had been involved in sex work. The evaluation reports great additional benefit from a gender-specific approach within the young adult focus.
A third of the young adults were BAME, with a higher rate in the prison-based projects than the community-based projects. A concern arising from the evaluation is disproportionately low levels of referral of young BAME men, in particular, by statutory agencies to voluntary sector services -, raising questions about the ability to meet the cultural, faith and ethnicity needs of this group -compared to referrals of young white men.
Sustainability
The most effective projects shared some common features in their structure and design, such as having a clearly defined distinct offer for young adults, strong partnerships in place from the beginning and a referral criteria and process that was co-designed by the project team and the referring agencies.
Sustainability of the projects beyond the pilot phase was universally tough at a time of continually shrinking budgets. Two projects were incorporated into the delivery model of a wider contract by the lead charity, two came to an end, and two secured further funding to carry on as they were. A reconviction study and economic analysis from MMU will conclude later this year, and be published in early 2018.
Wider impact
As a collective, T2A Pathway projects contributed evidence to the House of Commons Justice Select Committee’s inquiry on Young Adult Offenders, which concluded in 2016 that there is “overwhelming evidence” in support of a distinct approach to young adults throughout the criminal justice system. Professionals and young people from the projects spoke at national conferences and local events alongside politicians, Police and Crime Commissioners and senior officials. The projects took part in an array of pioneering research projects, including ones on brain injury, bereavement and race equality.
The projects’ legacy is still emerging, but it is clear they have already delivered immense impact, not only on the lives of hundreds of young people and their communities, but also on the people who work with them, and on those who make the policies.
This blog was written by Max Rutherford, Criminal Justice Programme Manager at the Barrow Cadbury Trust in response to the Final Process Evaluation report of the T2A Pathway. For more information email Max Rutherford.
The Barrow Cadbury Trust was set up by husband and wife, Barrow and Geraldine Cadbury, almost 100 years ago. We consider ourselves to be part of, as well as funders of, civil society and we still follow the old Quaker imperative (since adopted widely by others) of ‘speaking truth to power’. That’s something we can do more or less with impunity in the UK, but this is not of course the case in all areas of the globe.
And because we see ourselves as very much an active player and partner in civil society, CAF (Charities Aid Foundation) approached the Trust to be a partner in its 2017 party conference fringe events around the issue of what has come to be known as the ‘shrinking space for civil society’ – the increasing trend of governments around the world to pass regressive laws that affect freedom of association, and repress the ability of people to speak up on important issues of civil liberty.
Bad news for civil liberties
The figures speak for themselves but are shocking nonetheless. More than 120 laws constraining freedom of association and assembly have been proposed and enacted in 60 countries since 2012 – that’s a huge blow to individual and community rights and impedes good governance and the development of healthy societies where everyone has a chance to achieve their potential.
Here in the UK of course we have a rich heritage of charities and community organisations – and that rich heritage has had a vital part to play in the creation of the liberal democracy in which we live. Our civil society – both its existence and its governance – is admired across the globe, not only by activists struggling in repressive regimes, but by those much closer to home in Europe.
The reaction of colleagues in countries we respect such as the Netherlands and the Nordic countries of Scandinavia to changes in UK law and regulation such as the Lobbying Act and the proposed Anti-advocacy Clause are surprise and bewilderment. Of course the changes proposed for charities look relatively trivial compared to some of the changes we’ve seen in other countries such as Hungary. But they undermine a long history of communities of citizens linked by common interests and collective activity and the comfort offered to those seeking to suppress opposition in parts of the world where speaking up comes at a great price. The UK is seen as a world leader in supporting freedom of speech and protecting human rights – it’s hard to overestimate the impact that even small steps to limit freedoms of civil society has in other countries where political leaders seek to repress opposition.
Using international development to bolster civil society
Many on the international stage look to the UK as an example of best practice in charity law and governance, and see the benefits of a “thick layer” of civil society (to quote our colleague Jordi Vaquer from the Open Society Foundation). It’s easy to take our own attitudes and traditions for granted and forget how influential the charity sector is in the UK. That’s why in the party conference events with CAF we took as our theme the exploration of ‘international development as an example of the UK’s soft power’.
The UK can influence global behaviour and help set the conditions for positive social change by consciously setting an example and using our resources and experience to support the development of a strong civil society in countries with which we have relationships. The Government’s continuing commitment to the 0.7% aid target is very welcome. We’d like to see a good part of those funds used to support the growth and maintenance of civil society. Soft power – projecting values through influence, ideas and the power of persuasion – is a powerful tool for influence overseas. By using our funds wisely, and by setting an example at home, we can use our heritage of a strong civil society to influence the change we’d like to see.
Debbie Pippard
Notes
Barrow Cadbury Trust’s contribution towards the costs of the fringe events came from the Barrow Cadbury Fund.
Read about CAF’s Groundwork for Global Giving campaign
Read NPC’s ‘The Shared Society needs a Strong Civil Society’
Find out about work on this issue co-ordinated by the European Foundation Centre
The Lammy Review is an independent review into the treatment of, and outcomes for black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) individuals in the criminal justice system. Published last month, the significant race inequalities in our criminal justice system were once again highlighted.
Over the party conference season Clinks held two roundtable events at both Labour and Conservative Conferences, supported by Barrow Cadbury Fund, to discuss the Review’s findings and recommendations. This blog is the first in a series of blogs following on from those events. Each week an attendee at one of the roundtables will write about their reflections on the review and what they plan to do in response to it. Keep an eye out for future blogs from David Lammy MP, Kate Green MP, Shaun Bailey AM, and PCC Paddy Tipping amongst others.
What did we hear?
David Lammy MP spoke at both roundtable events. At the Labour conference he was joined by the Shadow Secretary of State for Justice Richard Burgon MP, and at the Conservative conference Sam Gymiah MP, Minister for Prisons and Probation. Members of Parliament, Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) and voluntary sector organisations from across the country attended both meetings.
Discussion at both events was lively and interesting with real commitment across politicians and the voluntary sector to undertake action to finally redress racial disproportionality in the criminal justice system. Police and Crime Commissioners highlighted the role they can play in instigating local action.
What can the voluntary sector can do to support Lammy’s recommendations? Discussion of the importance of BAME organisations, which are rooted in the lived experience of the people they are working with, contrasted starkly with the finding from Clinks latest state of the sector survey which found that these organisations are 30% more likely to be at risk of closure. So the fact that the Review draws attention to probation supply chains failing to tap into the expertise of BAME voluntary sector organisations was welcomed.
There was also recognition from larger voluntary sector organisations around the table that they must also play their part in ensuring that government now acts on David Lammy’s recommendations and make sure they lead by example within their own work.
According to the Review data is not consistently collected across the system and David Lammy’s recommendations on this, as well as those aimed at ensuring that data is properly understood and acted upon, were welcomed.
Both events raised the glaring disproportionality in the youth justice system and the potential for diversion schemes such as deferred prosecution, currently being piloted in West Midlands and Durham, also highlighted by the Review.
Participants welcomed the Review’s recognition of the multifaceted nature of the BAME category and the specific needs of particular groups within it, such as Gypsy, Traveller and Roma people or people of Muslim faith. The Review’s exploration of how being from a BAME background and in contact with the criminal justice system intersects with other issues such as gender, complex needs and family links and support was also welcomed.
There was a strong feeling from participants that the Review’s recommendations be considered alongside other Ministry of Justice work including developing a female offenders strategy and responding to the Farmer Review into support for family links.
The Review’s focus on trust was welcomed, as was the need to remove the ‘us and them’ culture in the criminal justice system by improving the workforce diversity, alongside a call to ensure that all staff are ‘culturally competent’.
What next?
There is of course so much more in David Lammy’s Review, including his recommendations for the courts, prison system and criminal records regime. However, there was a real feeling in the room that this was just the beginning of the conversation.
David Lammy was clear that he is committed to this agenda for the long term. Local and national politicians from both sides of the political divide were keen to continue to engage, discuss and work with voluntary sector partners and others to take action to finally begin to address the poorer outcomes faced by BAME people in our criminal justice system.
Clinks looks forward to publishing the reflections of other attendees at the events over the coming weeks and to working with our members and policy makers, politicians and criminal justice agencies to identify action and good practice that can drive change and improve equality in our criminal justice system.
Read Clinks statement on its findings and recommendations here. A full briefing on the report will be available soon.
Jamie Evans, Research Associate at the Personal Finance Research Centre, University of Bristol, posted this blog originally on the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute website. We are very grateful to them for allowing us to cross-share it below.
While the title above may sound ominous, greater sharing of data between financial firms could bring benefits to creditors and consumers alike – especially where customers in vulnerable situations are concerned.
This is something that I and my colleagues at the Personal Finance Research Centre (PFRC) are exploring in our latest research project, which has kindly been supported by the Barrow Cadbury Trust.
Sharing can be difficult
This may seem counterintuitive but the reason I think this subject is so important is because sharing – on a person-to-person level – is something that can be incredibly difficult to do.
Every day, hundreds, if not thousands, of people face really tough conversations with their creditors. They might need to disclose the death of a loved one, or reveal that they are living with a serious mental health condition which will severely affect their finances.
For many people, sharing such information is draining – no matter how kind, polite and empathetic the person at the other end of the phone line is.
After putting the phone down, the last thing that most people will want to do is to immediately repeat the conversation with one of their other creditors, and then probably another one after that.
Sharing data could be much easier
So rather than having multiple, similar conversations with different creditors – which can be difficult and time-consuming – what if the first creditor that you speak to could simply notify all of the others that you need to deal with?
They needn’t share information about the precise nature of your situation, but they could at least let others know what additional support you might need. This would ensure that all firms that you deal with are in a better position to support you with whatever you’re going through.
In a world of near-instantaneous data transfer, this is theoretically possible – though of course we need to explore the practicalities of doing this and, crucially, need to ask ourselves whether the potential benefits outweigh the costs and possible risks.
How could data sharing work in practice?
The Government’s ‘Tell Us Once’ service, which allows individuals to report a birth or death to most government organisations in one go, offers one possible example as to what such data sharing could look like from a consumer’s perspective.
A service like this offered by financial firms might go down well, especially when multiple firms have similar processes that are time-consuming and potentially upsetting (for example, when registering a death or Power of Attorney).
In time, such a service could be developed to deal with a wider range of customer circumstances.
Of course, describing how such a scheme would work at the ‘front end’ is one thing; saying how it would work at the ‘back end’ is quite another. There are many practical questions to consider: should organisations share information directly with one another, or should it be shared via a third-party database? If so, who manages this database and how do organisations get access to the data?
Then there is the question of how organisations can align the way they record information to make it suitable for sharing in the first place. Thankfully, on this point, financial firms can learn lessons from the electricity sector, which is currently aligning its ‘needs codes’ to improve sharing of information.
What are the risks of data sharing?
While there are potential benefits to data sharing, there are also risks that need to be carefully managed:
- Customers could lose control of their data. This control is vital if consumers are to trust the service.
- Firms could make mistakes if information isn’t recorded in a sufficiently clear, consistent or detailed way.
- Consumers could be inadvertently excluded from financial services because of their situation.
- Unscrupulous firms could exploit vulnerable consumers, e.g. by carrying out aggressive marketing or targeting them at certain times.
‘A problem shared is a problem halved’
There are clearly many issues to consider here, from the practicalities and costs to the question of what level of data sharing – if any – consumers would be comfortable with.
We are exploring such issues throughout the course of our research, beginning with a review of the available evidence, possible models, and the legal and regulatory frameworks.
Then, in the spirit of the old saying ‘a problem shared is a problem halved’, we’ll be engaging with as many experts as we possibly can. This, we hope, will allow us to produce a blueprint for a model of data-sharing that genuinely works both for firms and their customers.
Services for the most marginalised and vulnerable women are scarce and increasingly under threat.
This is something that, working in the women’s sector, we already know.
We know this from our conversations with professionals who are working with women and are struggling to maintain services against smaller and smaller budgets.
We know this from the women themselves, whose lives are difficult enough, who jump hurdle after hurdle to access basic support or are left sitting on waiting lists for months. When help finally arrives, it fails to meet their specific needs. So they begin again, trying to find their way out of a system that often sets them up to fail.
What Mapping the Maze, the new project by AVA and Agenda, enables us to do is back-up women’s voices and their accounts of the challenges they face, with a geographical and numerical picture of the reality on the ground.
It aimed to find out what support was available to women experiencing multiple disadvantage who may be at risk of homelessness, substance misuse, poor mental health, offending and those who have more complex needs.
It shows that support specifically for women is not good enough. There are not enough services and provision is patchy across the country. A woman’s ability to access a service depends very much on where she lives – in some areas there is a range of services, in others there appears to be none at all.
In only 19 areas of England and Wales – out of 173 – can women access services that address all of the following issues: substance misuse, mental health, homelessness, offending for women and complex needs.
More mixed services may be available – but many of these will not cater for the specific needs and experiences of women.
That is because women experience multiple disadvantage in different ways to men. In particular they are more likely to have histories of extensive abuse and violence, the trauma impacting the course of their lives. The support they get needs to take this into account.
Therefore, mixed services are often not appropriate and can even be unsafe for women. For example, homeless and substance misuse services are often dominated by men – some of whom will be abusers – which at the very least can be intimidating for women and at worst, dangerous. That is why women-only support is so important.
Another challenge highlighted by Mapping the Maze is that most services only address single issues like substance misuse or mental health. If a woman does not fit the narrow parameters getting onto the service requires, she can be passed around a range of different services, none of them quite meeting her needs, leaving her unable to address the full range of challenges she faces.
That is not to say good services do not exist – they do. There are many organisations across the country doing fantastic work under challenging circumstances.
For Mapping the Maze, we spoke to a number of professionals working with women. They told us that they are being asked to provide more for less and are under pressure to hit targets that do not take account of the incremental, smaller gains that put women on a long-term path to rebuilding their lives.
We also consulted with women themselves, who told us what they wanted from service. They valued feeling safe in caring women-only environments where they are heard and understood, have support that is flexible and accessible and does not feel rushed.
Government, commissioners and service providers need to better respond to what women want and improve commissioning and services to reflect their needs.
Mapping the Maze provides evidence to back up the reports of professionals and women in the sector of the need for significant improvements and investment in support, with a focus on women-only and trauma-informed care.
We need central government to take the lead on this so that women facing multiple disadvantage – wherever they live – have a chance of making a new future for themselves and their families.
Find out more about Mapping the Maze
The Connect Fund was born this spring. The fourth young fund in the Access Foundation stable, it has slowly found its legs, teetered around the field, and poked its nose into the social investment market. The initial task was to map and consult with many social investment actors to design the new social investment infrastructure fund. We left no stone unturned.
By mid-June, the Connect Fund was ready for its first outing, and debuted to much fanfare. The fund’s stated purpose is to ‘build a better social investment market’ to ensure that small to medium sized charities and social enterprises – that make up the bulk of the social sector – access the right kind of repayable finance to advance their mission.
Dazzling debut with daring debate
A diverse crowd of over 95 people gathered at the Foundry in Vauxhall to hear about the Connect Fund. Its stated objectives are to fill gaps in the architecture of the current social investment market, and to better connect existing voluntary sector infrastructure organisations to social investment.
An engaging debate on the state of social investment took off at the starting gate. Steve Wyler, a trustee of Access, quoted Responsible Finance figures to make the argument that social investment isn’t working. Jeremy Rogers, Chief Investment Officer at Big Society Capital, pointed out that £306m of ‘risk capital’ non-bank investments were made in 2016, including unsecured lending, community shares, charity bonds, social impact bonds, equity and social property funds. David Floyd from Social Spider, followed up with a blog to make sense of it all.
Place your bets
Next up was the first round call for Expressions of Interest (EOI) for grant funding, which ran from June to early July. This funding window had a focus on collaborative initiatives to address current gaps in social investment market infrastructure. A primary purpose was to promote sharing of tools, data and resources to lower transaction costs; increase diversity and innovation; and facilitate learning and feedback to move social investment forward.
In response, the Connect Fund received 62 applications, for a total request amount of £3.25m and an average grant size of £49,849. Of these, approximately 40 are best suited to the aims of this first round EOI, for a total request amount of £2.4m and an average grant size of £60,927. The remaining 22 proposals are better suited to the second round EOI, with a focus on voluntary sector infrastructure and membership organisations, and will be shifted to this second stage.
Looking strong, but keep an eye out
Comparing the field, the fund generated a strong range of proposals. There was a positive turnout across nine separate themes. These include business development, capacity building, data sharing, diversity, market information, networks, shared resources, skill development and standards/templates. A number of collaborative approaches were put forward, and the message on partnership was clearly received.
A good selection of ideas is in the running. The need for diversity was well recognised. A number of proposals showed promise to build staff teams, expand diversity of demand-side recipients, encourage new entrants to the sector, and widen the leadership pipeline for social investment.
Ideas for reducing transaction costs, sharing resources and enhancing market information were put forward. Proposals to increase regional representation and eliminate geographic cold spots also turned up. Of the 62 proposals we received, 42% were from organisations outside of London.
A few gaps in the line-up remain. One task for the Connect Fund is to identify areas that are missing or might need further development. Initiatives to develop a shared diagnostic tool, common due diligence, and technical skill development for the sector have been discussed but did not make an appearance.
Key to form is to build learning groups for initiatives that share a common theme. Data sharing is a perfect example of how a ‘community of practice’ could achieve added value to ensure that projects are mutually beneficial and non-duplicative. Capacity building initiatives also have the potential to be greater than the sum of the parts. The Connect Fund will seek to host or promote learning partnerships to accelerate solutions to shared challenges and extend collaboration across organisations working on related topics.
The current task is to sift through the 40 first-round grant applications on the basis of 10 different criteria to finalise the shortlist. Applicants will be notified by mid-August if they will progress to the next round. Shortlisted proposals will be asked to submit full grant applications for final investment management committee decisions in mid-November.
One to watch
Voluntary sector infrastructure and membership bodies should keep an eye out for the second round EOI which will run from 2 October to 5 November 2017. This funding round is designed to foster enterprise-driven initiatives that can connect places or sectors to social investment. A key objective is to extend the reach of social investment by geography, sector, and on an equalities basis to diversify and widen access to new forms of finance. This will take the form of grants for feasibility studies to explore social investment capacity building, brokering, and advice or scoping of social investment programmes.
The Connect Fund will continue to engage with the social investment market to shift the narrative to focus on the funding realities that mission-driven social organisations face. Social investment is one tool for charities and social enterprises to consider as they explore a pathway to generating income and building more financial resilience. Please get in touch if your organisation has good ideas that the Connect Fund could help to support.
Jessica Brown, the Connect Fund Manager, wrote this blog originally for the Access Fund website.
