Description Umbrella http://www.impetus.org.uk Tue, 18 June 2013 10:04:00 Tue, 18 June 2013 10:04:00 Jenny North http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/june/18/wrap-up-18-june-2013/ Thanks for stopping by. This week, the Centre for Social Justice begins releasing its Breakthrough Britain 2013 reports, beginning with Signed On, Written Off: An inquiry into welfare dependency in Britain. 1. The Centre for Social Justice is releasing its Breakthrough Britain 2013 reports, starting with a report into worklessness in the UK. Rhian Johns, a colleague from the Private Equity Foundation, gave evidence to that working group and is quoted twice, on the structural nature of youth unemployment, and the paucity for good advice for young people making the transition to work. 2. A new OFSTED report concludes that non-selective secondary schools are failing able pupils, as measured by the gap between their ability on leaving primary school, and their subsequent GCSE attainment. This is blamed on teachers concentrating on “the middle” and failing to challenge and extend able children, who do not develop the “resilience” to deal with more challenging work. You can find the summary here and the full report here . 3. A story about the extent of the South Eastern dominance of places at Oxford and Cambridge. It shows that not only are students from a select few local authority areas more likely to apply to Oxbridge, but that their applications are much more likely to be successful. The Head of Admissions at Oxford responds that this is as much about attainment as about aspiration . 4. A Harvard Business Review blog on impact management – how voluntary sector organisations need to manage “medium data” before they even think about “big data”.   That’s it for this week. Be sure to check back next week for another instalment of my Weekly Research Advocacy and Policy Update, the WRAP Up. Jenny North is Director of Policy and Strategy at Impetus Trust. http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/june/18/wrap-up-18-june-2013/ http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/june/18/wrap-up-18-june-2013/ Tue, 18 June 2013 10:04:00 Jenny North http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/june/11/wrap-up-11-june-2013/ My weekly research, advocacy, and policy update is back. This week I look at Ed Miliband’s speech on Labour’s approach to welfare, and share news about a new ICAEW website to link volunteer accountants with charities. 1) In his speech at a G8 conference, David Cameron attempts to stamp “Made in the UK” on social investing. He announced the creation of a Community Assets Fund, backed by Big Society Capital and BIG Lottery Fund. Other than that, and the fact that the consultation of social investment tax relief is finally launched, nothing new. 2) A Guardian article discusses how the Coalition’s plan to reduce childcare ratios is “dead in the water”, thanks to the Liberal Democrats. This doesn’t leave the government with many policy proposals in this area. 3) Ed Miliband made his heavily trailed speech on the Labour approach to welfare. Long-term solution: build more houses so rents (and housing benefit bills) go down. Short-term: implement a cap on benefit spending (to be designed by an “independent committee”, so no juicy details). This is alongside other policies, such as the jobs guarantee and cutting the Winter Fuel Allowance for wealthy pensioners. 4) A Stanford Social Innovation Review series from Caroline Fiennes on the difference between monitoring and evaluation (apparently the former is what you do to an organisation, the latter to an idea) and why charities shouldn’t do their own, at least when it comes to evaluation. 5) An interesting report by the Paul Hamlyn Foundation to quantify the impact of its funding across its portfolio. 6)  New research from the Sutton Trust showing that the 500 top performing comprehensive schools have, on average, a proportion of pupils on Free School Meals that is half the average for their Local Authorities. This is the result of “covert selection” through proximity to the school. To balance this, the Sutton Trust is calling for a ballot system to randomly allocate a proportion of places. 7) The ICAEW is launching a new website to match volunteer accountants with charities in need of pro bono financial skills. 8) Social Innovation Fund (SIF) watchers may be interested to see that it has recruited its third director . Thanks for stopping by this week. Be sure to come back next week for another instalment of my WRAP Up. Jenny North is Director of Policy and Strategy at Impetus Trust. http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/june/11/wrap-up-11-june-2013/ http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/june/11/wrap-up-11-june-2013/ Tue, 11 June 2013 14:06:00 Jenny North http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/may/09/will-payment-by-results-ever-get-a-fair-crack-of-the-whip/ The last Comprehensive Spending Review – a document bearing the mark of HM Treasury – claimed to be underpinned by the Coalition Government’s guiding principle of “increasing diversity of provision in public services through further use of Payment by Results (PbR)”. But since then, statements coming out of that department have been more likely to undermine PbR than commit to it. At a recent conference, Sharon White, HMT’s Director General of Public Services said, “We take a pragmatic view of whether Payment by Results works. It is quite hard to get a firm handle on the numbers...some of us who have been around a long time get very nervous about panaceas. We're taking a very cautious approach on whether this is going to deliver better value for money compared to direct public spending intervention.” Certainly, PbR is not enjoying great press at the moment – with many small charities claiming to have suffered from poorly designed contracts as part of the Work Programme. But in other parts of Whitehall, civil servants and Ministers must be shaking their heads in frustration at such statements, and wondering if PbR is going to get a fair crack of the whip. Many departments and Local Authorities are involved in developing, trialling, and delivering PbR contracts. All officials who work on the subject agree that PbR is a vitally important to the improvement of public services, as well as being a work in progress, with more iterations and innovations needed (although many PbR contracts are up and running, and working well). The thought that the Treasury may be briefing against a concept which requires momentum, not deceleration, is dispiriting. This is not to say that the Government’s commitment to developing PbR shouldn’t be a measured one. Impetus works day to day with organisations that are either delivering PbR contracts now, or may do so in the future. We’re also social investors ourselves, as is The Private Equity Foundation, through the DWP’s Innovation Fund, and we’ve always raised an eyebrow at some of the more hyperbolic claims made for it by Westminster and Whitehall. In particular, the belief that PbR will reduce expenditure has never looked exactly evidence-based. The real promise of PbR is that the state will spend its money on services which deliver outcomes proven to be valuable, and not on “business as usual” activities and processes which may not have any meaningful impact on their recipients. You don’t have to be an idealist to imagine that such services may result in long-term savings to the public purse, but it is far from certain that any of these will be immediately cashable. Equally, one need not be a sceptic to think HMT may be more interested in these savings than in the “value for money” to which White refers. PbR is a developing area of practice – more work is needed in terms of defining outcomes, setting incentives, and sharing rewards in ways which make sense for commissioners, investors, and delivery organisations. There are barriers to this development, and one in particular relates to incentives for Local Authorities. Local agencies are expected to take on much of the risk – and most of the trouble – of identifying services which could be commissioned on a PbR basis, designing this new procurement, and possibly engaging with private social investors. If a social enterprise delivers a programme that gets a troublesome local NEET population into education, training or employment, then the Local Authority will have spent its budget wisely, and will almost certainly have generated some savings. But the greatest, and most enduring savings, will accrue to HM Treasury in terms of tax take, and to DWP in terms of reducing spending on welfare. The police, and local justice agencies, may also feel the benefit in terms of decreased levels of crime and anti-social behaviour. However, there is currently no way, and there doesn’t seem to be much will, to share any of these savings with the Local Authority – or, indeed, the delivery organisation – who, through their innovation, were directly responsible for them. Council leaders and local government experts agree that this is a major disincentive to investing in the time and training required to trial PbR and Social Investment Bonds (SIBs). As further spending cuts come down the line and Local Authorities’ internal capacity is squeezed, this inability to invest in the non-urgent will only increase. The Cabinet Office is attempting to unblock the pipeline with its Social Outcomes Fund, which “tops up” outcomes payments when a local agency, for example the police, won’t contribute themselves. A more sustainable solution for the future may be Community Budgets, currently being piloted in Greater Manchester. These allow multiple providers of public services to share budgets. Those of us working with delivery organisations are taking a balanced view of PbR, understanding both the potential but also the challenges. We’re committed to the concept, but know that most innovations need to evolve over time. The Treasury’s ‘balanced approach’ may be heard as casting doubt on the efforts being made at local level to embed PbR. We think the Treasury can avoid the pitfalls of hyperbole while striking a more positive tone. If public services are to become better – and better value – commissioners must be supported in testing new methods of delivery, and not unnerved. The status quo is not working for our communities. Innovation cannot happen in Whitehall alone, nor always under Whitehall’s control. http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/may/09/will-payment-by-results-ever-get-a-fair-crack-of-the-whip/ http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/may/09/will-payment-by-results-ever-get-a-fair-crack-of-the-whip/ Thu, 09 May 2013 17:31:00 Jenny North http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/may/6/wrap-up-6-may-2013/ Welcome back to my weekly policy update. This week’s news highlight is research released by GiveWell showing a correlation between expenditure on core costs and charity effectiveness. 1. New research shows that charities spending less on administration costs are less likely to be “effective” – as rated by GiveWell, a US research firm. Caroline Fiennes was also involved in the research. I wrote a blog on this subject earlier. 2. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NVCO) Voluntary Sector Almanac is out, with up to date info on charity income, expenditure, levels of commissioning etc. There’s an overview of trends here . 3. Are you feeling slightly baffled by Universal Credit, being (very minimally) piloted from this week? Read this essential guide . 4. A blog from the Economist on some dodgy use of stats coming out of Department for Work and Pensions. Thanks for dropping by this week. Be sure to check back next week for another edition of my Weekly Research, Advocacy and Policy Update—the WRAP Up. Jenny North is Director of Policy and Strategy at Impetus Trust. http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/may/6/wrap-up-6-may-2013/ http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/may/6/wrap-up-6-may-2013/ Mon, 06 May 2013 10:23:00 Jenny North http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/april/29/wrap-up-29-april-2013/ There have been lots of interesting and useful developments this week, including in social investing, government commissioning and impact management. 1. The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) launched their new “Condition of Britain ” research programme. It proposes to uncover which issues the British public are most anxious and concerned about (which don’t always correspond, of course, to the biggest problems that actually face the country), and how politicians can refer to these anxieties. Think of it as the ‘Breakdown Britain’ for the 2015 election. 2. IPPR also released a paper on lessons for the UK from the US right on rehabilitation – nothing startlingly new, but some nice turns of phrase, including: “Prisons are for people we are afraid of, but we are filling them with people we are just mad at.” 3. Policy Exchange launched its report on the future of public services , which recommends making it easier for private firms and the voluntary sector to compete to deliver them, and contains some new recommendations to enable this. State commissioning and procurement receive a lot of criticism, and the report concludes that fewer public sector leaders should be paid more money to attract better talent and improve purchasing quickly.   4. The Department for Work and Pensions released its update on the Social Justice Strategy . The first two chapters on supporting families and young people are well worth a read, as they give a good overview of all the activities the government sees as falling into the category of social justice, the results of various programmes, and projected next steps. 5. A detailed Guardian article was published on impact management in action amongst social entrepreneurs in India, and the importance of tracking impact “little and often”. 6.  More on impact management from the chairman of US-based Venture Philanthropy Partners – I like his focus on the importance of “courage in the use of data”, ie, face the facts! 7. Interesting US article on the potential of Pay for Success (aka Payment by Results) to unfreeze innovation in the social sector. The real highlight is the section on the role of philanthropy. The article comes from a complete journal edition devoted to social impact bonds , which I think is worth a look. That’s it for now, but be sure to check back next week for another instalment of my Weekly Research, Advocacy and Policy Update—the WRAP Up. Jenny North is Director of Policy and Strategy at Impetus Trust. http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/april/29/wrap-up-29-april-2013/ http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/april/29/wrap-up-29-april-2013/ Mon, 29 April 2013 15:41:00 Jenny North http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/april/22/wrap-up-22-april-2013/ This week’s highlight is a Huffington Post interview with Sir Ronald Cohen following his article "Social Impact Investing is the New Venture Capital" published in the Harvard Business Review in January. 1. An interview with Sir Ronald Cohen appeared on Huffington Post where he praised Think Forward, a programme set up by Private Equity Foundation that helps young people make the transition from school to work. As we continue to pursue our merger with The Private Equity Foundation, you can find more information here . 2. The Guardian produced this interactive map of youth unemployment in the UK. Alongside it is this great column on the rise in underemployment. This is definitely an issue on the rise.  3. This is a lengthy but worthwhile NY Times piece on the significance of the "vocabulary gap" between young children from rich and poor backgrounds. The research is very well known, but this piece asks why it didn’t create more policy change in the US (or UK) around encouraging talking to your child. The writer’s answer is that there was no way to measure whether any initiative had worked, so therefore nothing was implemented. (The sceptic might say that not knowing how to measure an initiative hasn’t stopped policymakers before.) There is now an easy to use recorder available which can be used to monitor parent-child interaction, and feed back to parents, whilst monitoring the child’s vocabulary development. There is a plan to integrate this practice into the Nurse Family Partnership (as the Family Nurse Partnership is called in the US), giving young disadvantaged mothers specialist support with their children. 4. An article from Third Sector on ‘the biggest charities you’ve never heard of’ – I actually have heard most of them, but think many of them stretch the definition of the term. Thanks for stopping by for my Weekly Advocacy Research and Policy Update. Be sure to stop by next week for more sector news. Jenny North is Director of Policy and Strategy at Impetus Trust. http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/april/22/wrap-up-22-april-2013/ http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/april/22/wrap-up-22-april-2013/ Mon, 22 April 2013 14:20:00 Jenny North http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/april/15/wrap-up-15-april-2013/ Quite a few interesting pieces have cropped up this week, including a report on a new trial by the Department for Education to shifting responsibility for excluded pupils from Local Authorities to schools. 1. The Institute for Public Policy Research’s (IPPR) view on “reinstating” the contributory principle in welfare, which I flagged last week, popped up in Ed Miliband’s speech on welfare reform. This got comprehensively lost against the Margret Thatcher coverage, so you can catch up on what Labour would do for the young unemployed here . 2. UNICEF released their follow up to the 2007 report which said that the UK’s children were the most miserable in the developed world. We’ve gone up the rankings, though unsurprisingly, there is a lot of devil in the detail – and even a cursory read shows how hard it is to really compare 24 disparate countries on a handful of snapshot measures. The full report is here , summarised here , and you can read my personal response to the report here . 3. To mark this week’s Skoll Development Forum, McKinsey has released "The Art & Science of Delivery"  – a series of essays on different ways to deliver interventions to the people that need them (mainly in the developing world). The section on scaling what works is short and sweet. 4. There are a range of interesting findings in this US paper on the efficacy of mentoring interventions : including that no programmes (out of five which were relevant) were found to have a positive impact on reproductive health outcomes (teen pregnancy and STDs), and that only half of the programmes targeting education had a positive impact. 5. Another report on a Department for Education trial of handing responsibility for excluded pupils to schools (rather than Local Authorities). It is very early days, so this report mainly sets out how schools are responding to the changes. It will be interesting to see whether this becomes mainstream – it would certainly have a big effect on how Alternative Provision is commissioned. Thanks for stopping by. Be sure to check back next week for another dose of my WRAP Up, the Weekly Research, Advocacy and Policy Update. Jenny North is Director of Policy and Strategy at Impetus Trust. http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/april/15/wrap-up-15-april-2013/ http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/april/15/wrap-up-15-april-2013/ Mon, 15 April 2013 17:02:00 Jenny North http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/april/11/unicef-report-–-not-all-about-ranking/ In 2007, I organised an event at which the then Secretary of State for Education, Alan Johnson MP, was speaking. Whatever it was supposed to be about, it was completely derailed by the release, the same day, of a UNICEF report that damningly ranked the UK bottom out of 21 countries on child wellbeing. This report was all journalists wanted to ask Alan Johnson about, and it has cropped up regularly in the press, Parliament, and policy papers ever since. Well, now its successor has been released and – ta da! – the UK has moved up to 16th out of 29 countries. The report looks at data up to 2010 across a range of indicators, including educational performance, material well-being, risky behaviour, and housing. Eighty-six per cent of UK children report a high level of life satisfaction, placing them near the top of the table. Even the fact that we come in 24th on educational wellbeing is not quite as gloomy as it might appear. Our bottom of the table rate of 74 per cent of teens in "further education" (defined here as 15-19) will go up when the school leaving age is raised to 18 in September, and our high rate of NEETs should be affected by this change as well. However, it is only worth keeping young people in education if you have something useful to offer them – and it is not yet clear that schools and colleges are prepared for the presence of extra 16- to 18-year olds not particularly engaged by their education so far. Our high participation rate in early education (over 95 per cent enrolled) has attracted favourable comment – pre-school attendance has been shown to be extremely important in preparing children for school, and to have long-term effects on attainment. So, it’s great that this is going up, and no doubt the introduction of 15 hours free entitlement for 3- and 4- year olds has been crucial here. But a word of caution, while children in the UK do not have to attend school until they are 5, in practice nearly all children are 4 when they start. The UNICEF report is measuring the percentage of children "between 4 and the compulsory school starting age" enrolled in pre-school education. From a UK perspective, it would be much more useful to measure the percentage of children from age 3, or even age 2, given the added importance of early exposure to high-quality early education for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Starting at 4 might be too late for some of these children to bridge the gap between them and their better-off peers. "High-quality" is the crucial word here when it comes to pre-school education, and one table that is missing is a ranking of the quality of countries’ early years provision. This really is a gap, and one the report’s authors sound equally frustrated by. If we were able to measure and rank the quality of provision it would be easier to see where high-enrolment rates mask poor value for money, and where high-quality provision leads to sustained educational success later in life. We can be relatively pleased with our 11th place in the table ranking educational engagement at age 15. But improving on this will require us to focus on raising the achievements of all children, and that means we need to shrink the school-readiness gap at 4 between disadvantaged children and their better-off peers, before the former group start slipping further behind. The biggest caveat against too much celebration of this report is that the gains shown are based on data only up to 2010, before the first spending cuts. The axe has fallen (and will fall again) on Early Years and Education budgets, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies has forecast that more children will fall below the poverty line as a result of benefit changes. UNICEF calls child poverty "susceptible to intervention" and calls strongly for government investment in children. In another six years, perhaps we’ll know whether this advice was heeded. Jenny North is Director of Policy and Strategy at Impetus Trust. http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/april/11/unicef-report-–-not-all-about-ranking/ http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/april/11/unicef-report-–-not-all-about-ranking/ Thu, 11 April 2013 17:11:00 Jenny North http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/april/08/wrap-up-8-april-2013/ This week we’ve seen a few interesting pieces on economics, including a chart from the Social Market Foundation showing options for boosting growth and a Guardian piece arguing that now is the best time for Britain to invest in infrastructure. 1. Amidst all the news about benefit cuts, and ‘Welfare Britain", here’s a piece by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) on how the welfare state can be made cheaper and more popular. It includes more money on home building, and less on housing benefit, less on child benefit and more on childcare, a "job guarantee" to time-limit unemployment, and a general rebuilding of the "contributory" principle. You can definitely expect these ideas to keep popping up on the way to the election. 2. A slightly mind-bending chart from the Social Market Foundation on the options for boosting growth – one for the economists, but also useful for seeing who’s saying what in Westminster and the press. 3. An overwrought but interesting article in the Telegraph about the fact that few of the fastest growing jobs require a degree. Only at the end does the author mention that many young people are not ready to transition from school to work, and that we need to tackle this as much as too many young people going to university. I am sceptical that there is any overlap in the groups. 4. A very well-written and effective report , which ‘busts comfortable myths’ about poverty – strongly moral in tone and intent as you might expect from a coalition of four churches! The section on Troubled Families is very powerful. 5. A story about how benevolent funds are being used as an alternative to state funding , and that they are receiving applications from local authorities for items that would have previously been state-funded. 6. More economics – a piece from the Guardian arguing that the UK is not too broke to invest in infrastructure, or at least no more broke than it has been in the past when infrastructure investment was high. Thanks for stopping by. Be sure to come back next Monday for another instalment of my Weekly Research, Advocacy and Policy Update—the WRAP Up. Jenny North is Director of Policy and Strategy at Impetus Trust. http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/april/08/wrap-up-8-april-2013/ http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/april/08/wrap-up-8-april-2013/ Mon, 08 April 2013 14:33:00 Jenny North http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/april/2/wrap-up-2-april-2013/ Back straight from a long weekend and there is much to catch up on. A recent evaluation of the Work Programme by the Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion, as well as reactions to Dan Palotta’s Ted talk top the list of this week’s WRAP Up. 1. Portland Communications have produced this useful  Road to the Manifestos  document, which details the likely big influencers within the three major parties, and the different manifesto-writing processes. Also some entertaining future-ology on the big issues, and the result of the General Election itself.  2. The Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion have produced an  evaluation  of the implementation of the Work Programme to date. It found little evidence of the “bid candy” claims of many sub-contractors. However, it does note that referrals to Voluntary and Community Sector sub-contractors were lower than expected, and speculates that the financial structure of the Work Programme does not incentivise the referral of high-needs clients onto specialist providers. Of course, this runs counter to how the Work Programme was sold by government. The report also comments that there has been confusion over managing “black box” commissioning. For those with an interest in this, I would recommend a read of the Summary and Conclusions. 3. This  Dan Palotta  Ted Talk video has generated some  response  in the Stanford Social Innovation Review - originally worth including because I felt the authors were wilfully missing Dan's point, that it's a fear of being seen to invest in long-term sustainability that holds charities back, with CEO pay as a single issue within this. Their agenda seemed to be really about high executive pay in any industry being a driver of pernicious inequality, and that non-profits shouldn't be encouraged to perpetuate this. However, the comments are really interesting, with Dan himself briefly appearing, and lots of insightful points made. In the end, I still agree with Dan but I don't think CEO pay is where the problem lies. 4. Grant Thornton released a review of  charity governance , which is well worth a read. It is not a thrilling read - it's mainly interesting in that it lists the externally visible features of an effective board , and estimates how well UK charities are doing against this list. 5. Impetus Trustee Craig Dearden-Phillips's  Third Sector column  is a paean of praise to Teach First and how it has successfully navigated a route to scale. Teach First's founder has just written a book about the organisation.  6. Boris Johnson has launched  Team London , a volunteering site which aims to match volunteers with charities.  7. A speech by  Matthew Hancock MP  to the Resolution Foundation this week, on the Tory response to low pay, which includes  a rationale for increasing the minimum wage, although this is not a government commitment.  Thanks for stopping by. Be sure to check back next week for another instalment of the Weekly Research, Advocacy and Policy Update. Jenny North is Director of Policy and Strategy at Impetus Trust. http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/april/2/wrap-up-2-april-2013/ http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/april/2/wrap-up-2-april-2013/ Tue, 02 April 2013 12:27:00 Jenny North http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/march/25/wrap-up-25-march-2013/ Welcome to the Weekly Research, Advocacy and Policy Update, the WRAP Up. The Budget took centre stage this week, making tax relief available on social investments, and other news highlights IPPR's analysis of George Osbourne's autumn statement and a new ACEVO programme to help charities win probation contracts. Let's dive in: 1.  BUDGET ! As I predicted, tax relief will be available for social investment. On top of this, a new National Insurance exemption for small and medium enterprises (SMEs), including charities, may prove to be even more beneficial. More generally, the personal tax allowance was raised to £10,000, there is a new help-to-buy scheme, and Whitehall budgets will be cut again.  This is apparently a fiscally neutral budget, but all the big announcements look like giveaways – hopefully analysis over the next few days will make it clearer where the hits are. 2. There was also a heavily trailed announcement of support for childcare costs. It could amount to £1,200 back for families paying £6,000 a year – but, controversially, it will be available to families earning as much as £300,000 per year, so it's not exactly targeted. 3. And, speaking of George Osborne, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) released an analysis of the autumn statement , claiming that it will increase the number of children living in poverty, and will benefit those on middle incomes the most. 4. Third Sector released its survey of the top voluntary sector pay packages – the main lesson being that the definition of ‘charity’ in the UK is extremely flexible, and includes private hospitals. It's worth scrolling to the bottom of the page and clicking the link to ‘download the full results’ to see how much some well-known names earn. This should be viewed in the context of public suspicion of high overheads and salaries in charities . 5. The Association for Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations (ACEVO) have announced a new programme to help charities win probation contracts – this is the distribution of the Ministry of Justice's capacity-building pot. 6. A story on how Save The Children is using its UK poverty pot to buy essentials for families. Thanks for stopping by, be sure to come back next week for another instalment of my WRAP Up. Jenny North is Director of Policy and Strategy at Impetus Trust. http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/march/25/wrap-up-25-march-2013/ http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/march/25/wrap-up-25-march-2013/ Mon, 25 March 2013 12:23:00 Jenny North http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/march/18/wrap-up-18-march-2013/ Welcome to the Weekly Research, Advocacy and Policy Update, the WRAP Up. This week, I take a look at new research released on the UK job gap, as well as a thought-provoking article from Stanford Social Innovation Review on how social innovation could drive job creation. 1. The Resolution Foundation released its latest research on the UK job gap . The headline figure is that returning the UK to its pre-recession employment rate of 60.3 per cent from its current rate of 58.7 per cent would require the creation of 850,000 new jobs – and an ageing population will make this harder to do.  It is also worth noting that, while the total number of people in work is above 2008 figures, the number of people in full-time employment has fallen by 545,000, part-time employment has risen by 282,000 and part-time self-employment has risen by the same figure, 282,000. These trends are certainly playing a part in the decline in living standards. 2. NPC released a report on the motivations of high-income donors, which includes many recommendations on communicating with existing and potential donors. 3. EVPA released its 2012 Survey of European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment . A read through the Executive Summary gives a cross-section of the similarities and differences in Venture Philanthropy organisations across Europe. Debt and equity were the most commonly used financial instruments for the first time this year, overtaking grants. 4. The Social Investment Business will launch a new fund this September (no link). Social Investment Business  (SIB) is currently asking for expressions of interest from charities and social enterprises which are looking for lending this year, and can pay interest rates of between 5 and 8 per cent over a 5 – 10 year period. A SIB spokeswoman said it had decided to get expressions of interest before investment to guide the direction of the loan fund: “It will be an intuitive process,” she said. She could not confirm the size of the loan fund. 5. Another great article from the Stanford Social Innovation Review 10 th anniversary edition: Rosabeth Moss Kantor on how social innovation could drive job creation. I hope you enjoyed this week’s update. Be sure to check in next week for more news. Jenny North is Director of Policy and Strategy at Impetus Trust. http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/march/18/wrap-up-18-march-2013/ http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/march/18/wrap-up-18-march-2013/ Mon, 18 March 2013 12:06:00 Jenny North http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/march/11/wrap-up-11-march-2013/ This week’s WRAP Up includes the new What Works Centres, a first person account of temporary homelessness and a deeper look at the public perception of charities. 1. This week Nesta, in partnership with the Cabinet Office, unveiled plans for a network of ‘What Works’ Centres to drive evidence-based policy making, commissioning, and delivery . The Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) has been declared a What Works Centre . The new Early Intervention Foundation is also a What Works Centre, and other initiatives are crime reduction, local economic growth and ageing better. 2. A new survey of childcare costs shows that these have apparently gone up by over 60% in the last decade. It seems pretty unlikely that these will be radically tackled by the government’s plan to reduce the minimum child to carer ratios. 3. Big Society Capital called for the extension of existing tax reliefs to include social investment , claiming this would cover the gap between supply and demand for this capital. This ‘demand’ is, of course, projected. 4. Building on my item last week pondering ‘hidden homelessness’ amongst NEETs, here is a good first-person account of temporary homelessness and poverty . He was ‘lucky’ in that he managed to keep his homelessness from endangering his job, but it’s easy to see how it could, or how it could make it impossible to take up employment. 5. Gina Miller, of Miller Philanthropy, keeps on popping up criticising overheads – and salaries full stop – in the voluntary sector. We have our own blog taking on this view. 6. A blog by Acumen’s Head of Innovation (always a good read) discussing a recent TED talk on what stops non-profits going to scale. Bearing in mind Gina Miller’s piece, the conclusion is that they are blocked by donor resistance (and organisational fear) about funding capacity, Research and Development, impact management. Both links are really worth reading, and they’re quick! Thanks for stopping by, be sure to visit us again next week for another instalment of the Weekly Research, Advocacy and Policy Update. Jenny North is Director of Policy and Strategy at Impetus Trust. http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/march/11/wrap-up-11-march-2013/ http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/march/11/wrap-up-11-march-2013/ Mon, 11 March 2013 16:15:00 Jenny North http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/march/8/building-a-social-innovation-market-by-design/ When it comes to social—or impact—investment, the UK government is seen as a world leader. Building on groundwork laid by the last Labour administration, and driven by a desire to enable innovative nonprofits to provide better and cheaper public services, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government has been determinedly putting in place enabling forces; the most well-known is  Big Society Capital . This wholesale bank is mandated to develop a sustainable social investment market, and it has £600 million in capital from disused bank accounts and bailed-out banks. The money will be invested in social investment finance intermediaries—the private organisations that will put up the capital for  Social Impact Bonds , or SIBs (pioneered in the UK, and now replicated in New York City by  Mayor Bloomberg ), and other pay-for-success models. So the supply side of social investment looks healthy in the UK. But what about the demand side? Any market depends as much on a pipeline of great entrepreneurs seeking investment as it does on a supply of capital. Although the UK has a well-established, passionate, and innovative nonprofit sector, research shows that it 1) lacks the necessary scale or appetite to take on repayable finance, and 2) lacks the robust impact measures needed to persuade investors to fund it. Compared to the “big bet” it made on Big Society Capital, the UK government has put precious little into building the demand side of the market: the innovators it wants to deliver these public services, financed by social investment. At Impetus Trust, we use venture philanthropy to build the scale, capacity, and outcome measurement skills of brilliant nonprofits, and we see investment readiness as an indicator of success. We also track examples of best practice around the world and have followed the US’s Social Innovation Fund (SIF) since its inception. Our recent  briefing paper  argues that, through its innovative funding model, the SIF is building investment-readiness in the US nonprofit sector, despite not having a mandate to do so. We show that the UK government could use elements of the SIF’s models to drive investment-readiness and deliver much better value for taxpayers. The SIF model—in which grants are given via intermediaries to nonprofits on the frontline, with government money leveraged 1:3—is truly innovative in the context of government grantmaking. It also provides expertise in scaling and capacity building to the front line—something government officials simply can’t. The UK government does provide “capacity-building” grants to nonprofits, but there is no evidence that these are spent in ways that build long-term resilience and reduced dependence on grants. SIF’s demand that beneficiaries show their deepening impact is unique, and they provide a route to the kind of outcome measurement that gives investors confidence of social and financial return. The SIF’s funding also outstrips the amount that the UK is putting into the demand side of the social investment market (discounting the millions spent on “building the sector’s capacity” over the years). In the US, $150 million of federal money has been matched by $350 million of state and private money, providing phenomenal value for taxpayers and building the fundraising capacity of local nonprofits. Paul Carttar , the SIF’s first director, told Impetus that the SIF model has garnered significant attention in Washington, DC, and that federal departments with more significant budgets are interested in replicating the Fund’s features with their nonprofit grant recipients. Our conclusion is that, as a by-product of its desire to drive social innovation, the SIF model may well drive a class of investment-hungry and, crucially, investment-ready nonprofits. The focus on building the resilience of a whole organisation, deepening social impact, and evidencing this will create sophisticated nonprofits that can specify the outcomes they produce and match these to commercial opportunities in the public or private sector. For attractive propositions, the investment is likely to appear without the government needing to massively stoke the supply side. Impetus is recommending that the UK government builds on the US experience, and consolidates some of its disparate grant streams into one fund with the explicit goal of driving long-term sustainability and investment-readiness. This should be distributed via intermediaries with a track record of doing just this and should require that they match fund. This way of funding is far more likely to identify social innovators with a scalable model and a desire to take on investment as they grow. If Big Society Capital’s money is to be put to use in the way it was intended, the UK government needs to work harder—and smarter—to ensure that the right organizations are ready. http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/march/8/building-a-social-innovation-market-by-design/ http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/march/8/building-a-social-innovation-market-by-design/ Fri, 08 March 2013 10:41:00 Jenny North http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/march/4/wrap-up-4-march-2013/ This week’s news covers a variety of topics, including the launch of Nesta and The Cabinet Office’s Centre for Social Action. 1. The Cabinet Office and Nesta have launched the Centre for Social Action . It will provide financial and non-financial support to help grow the impact of innovations that harness the capabilities, expertise and resourcefulness of citizens and civil society. It seems to be less about volunteering and more about public service reform through greater civic participation. 2. What we at Impetus refer to as ‘impact management’ has been all over the news! NPC on what they’re calling ‘impact practice’ – and in the Guardian too.  3.  A US article on the non-profit world’s problem with taking criticism. 4. Like Impetus, the Stanford Social Innovation Review is 10-years-old. On their blog is the question ‘Has venture philanthropy passed its peak?’. Her concern is that Venture Philanthropy (in the US) may be funding too many organisations that will never have what it takes, instead of ‘doubling-down’ and sticking with the ones that could. 5. A must-read: Geofunder's guide to how funders can scale an organisation. 6. A new Joseph Rowntree Foundation report on the link between housing and poverty - mainly focusing on how rising housing cost and lack of suitable housing are leading people into poverty, or preventing them from getting out of it. An under-researched but interesting subject in this area (according to me) is de facto homelessness amongst young people who 'should' still be in the parental home, but find this impossible. Sofa-surfing obviously makes it harder to engage with education and employment. Thanks for checking out my Weekly Research, Advocacy and Policy Update. Be sure to stop by next week. Jenny North is Director of Policy and Strategy at Impetus Trust. http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/march/4/wrap-up-4-march-2013/ http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/march/4/wrap-up-4-march-2013/ Mon, 04 March 2013 09:31:00 Elena Pantazi http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/march/1/is-my-desk-in-the-way-of-making-a-difference/ Before I became a venture philanthropist at Impetus, I just couldn’t figure out how to make a positive contribution to society I wanted from behind my desk – whether it was in an office or in a classroom. My skills are more suited to producing financial models, assessing the strength of business plans and putting together a growth strategy for a start-up. I constantly asked myself: how could I help? Then, during my year at INSEAD, I attended a career advice lecture designed to help students find their way out of academia and into the real world. Like many of my fellow students, I assumed a career in banking, private equity, hedge funds or consulting was what lay ahead. But this lecture challenged my assumptions. The speaker was a woman who led a charity pioneering conflict resolution work with young adults and under her leadership, the organisation had become a national charity. While I listened to her I could really sense the passion she had for her work. I was inspired; I wanted to know more about her work, but even more so, I was curious as to how she found her place there. After that lecture, over a coffee, I had the chance to ask more questions about how the charity had managed to scale up so significantly and increased its reach to help more young people. I asked her about her vision for change and how she made it a reality. I asked about her team and more about the programmes she offered young adults. In short, I was trying to figure out how I could make a similar impact. Then she said that there was a place for people like me. They were a group of people with exactly my skills who shared my passion to help organisations grow. In fact, they had helped her charity grow and they used an effective model called venture philanthropy. That conversation was a turning point for me. All this time I thought that the social entrepreneurs or charity leaders around me had something special about them that enabled them to make a change in the world, not me. Ten minutes on the Impetus Trust website and I realised that I too could help others. I could enable others to achieve their vision by giving what I had: my skills and expertise in business. It sounded like the perfect balance to me and I decided to try my hand at venture philanthropy to see what I could with what I had in me. After joining Impetus, my first project was helping to prepare a government bid for  I CAN , the children’s communication charity, and I worked side-by-side with the Chief Operating Officer. The partnership was mutually beneficial. I was able to share the skills I had gained over years in the private sector before my MBA, producing a model of financial reporting that could illustrate the underlying operational requirements for the level of social impact the charity wanted to have. And what I learned from I CAN was that everything in the world had underlying business assumptions that connected to real world impacts. I was impressed by the COO’s vision to change the world and how this translated to detailed financial models and business plans. After a year with Impetus, I realised that by working with ambitious and fast-growing charities, I was actually coming across issues very similar to those I confronted in my days working in a start-up. All organisations require a basic business foundation, and, if done right, they can grow at a significant pace, increasing their impact and making a real difference in the world. Although I had always wanted to make a difference in the world, I never imagined it would be using the same skills I use at my day job. My experience with I CAN taught me that it doesn’t matter where you work, what matters is the motivation behind your actions and the skills you contribute to a cause you believe in. I’m proud to have contributed to the growth of the charities in the Impetus portfolio. Impetus helped me realise my dream of making a difference in the world, and I certainly won’t stop anytime soon. Elena Pantazi is a Manager at Bain Capital and previously worked as an Investment Manager at Impetus Trust. She first joined Impetus as an intern and today continues to give her time and talent as a pro bono expert. http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/march/1/is-my-desk-in-the-way-of-making-a-difference/ http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/march/1/is-my-desk-in-the-way-of-making-a-difference/ Fri, 01 March 2013 13:57:00 Jenny North http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/february/28/investing-in-capacity-will-improve-the-quality-of-services-charities-can-deliver/ I recently saw Ben Page of MORI present fascinating polling on public perception of charities. Amongst the findings that trust in charities remains high, and despite their fact that most people seem unclear about how charities operate and what they actually do, I noticed that 61% of adults polled felt  that ‘charities spend too much on salaries and administration’. This ‘gut feeling’ isn’t new or unknown to those of us who work in the sector – we know that people want to feel the money they donate goes directly to ‘the cause’ and they’d rather it didn’t get spent on PCs, salaries, or light bulbs for the office. As Gina Miller of Miller Philanthropy says in a  recent article , “when people drop their money in a collection bucket they don't expect it to be spent paying the collector or buying the buckets.” Perhaps they don’t expect it, but maybe they should. We know the financial crisis is squeezing charity incomes as funding sources dwindle – and at the same time, the pressures on the rest of society are driving up demand for charities’ services. Although it’s sensible to apply a smidge of scepticism to fundraising campaigns, a refusal to acknowledge the true cost of operating a charity is a naive approach to giving. The quality of a charities’ infrastructure can actually be its most important selling point. To make the maximum impact on the problem it wants to solve, a charity needs to provide a well-structured and focused service, supported by the right staff, who are making strategic decisions when it comes to spending their money. Crucially, these decisions should be data-driven – that is based on evidence about what does or doesn’t work when serving beneficiaries, and designed to continually improve outcomes. Great staff, effective services, and impact management don’t come for free, but if you care about helping the worst-off, they are an essential investment. At Impetus we are proud that we do what some won’t, and that the funding we provide is unrestricted – meaning charities can spend it on salaries for non-front-line staff (like a brilliant Chief Operating Officer), capital costs, or better IT. Part of our package is also securing pro bono services from top city firms; not as a nice-to-have extra, but because we believe that if a charity does not have a strategic plan, and the internal resources and systems in place to realise that plan, it has no chance of expanding and taking its services to more people – it won’t even know whether its services work. Our intensive management support also focuses on getting the internal factors in place for success, and ensuring that out portfolio organisations are efficient, well-run, and focused on impact. When charities invest in capacity, they can be more efficient in terms of cost-per-outcome, and are in a better position to quality assure and to innovate. That means donors actually get more value for the money they drop in the bucket. It is essential that overheads are a reasonable proportion of expenditure and that funds to the front-line are maximised. But fear (the public’s, funders’, and charities’ themselves) of investing in capacity has left us with a sector that is rich in innovation and potential, but operating well short of the scale that could really make a difference to the disadvantaged and vulnerable. http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/february/28/investing-in-capacity-will-improve-the-quality-of-services-charities-can-deliver/ http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/february/28/investing-in-capacity-will-improve-the-quality-of-services-charities-can-deliver/ Thu, 28 February 2013 14:55:00 Jenny North http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/february/25/wrap-up-25-february-2013/ In contrast to last week’s marathon of sector news, this week is short and sweet:   1. The Child Poverty Action Group released a map of child poverty in the UK, showing which local authorities had above average numbers of children living in poverty. The headline rate is 1 in 5 children living in poverty, which is defined as 60% of median earnings (roughly £15k). Tower Hamlets had the highest local authority rate at 42%. The BBC carried this story on poverty in Manchester. 2. The Reform think tank released a report calling for more private prisons, and criticising the Government’s decision to limit competition in the prison system to rehabilitation and ancillary services. The report claims that private prisons outperform state providers on a range of measures, including reoffending.   3. Lovely piece from the Stanford Social Innovation Review on how leading philanthropists “fail well”. Data-driven decision-making features heavily, and I personally think the ‘Worst Grant Contest’ sounds great! 4. The UN Innovation leader gives tips on scaling social innovations, which is relevant for the UK. Sadly, though, the section on evaluation is more impact measurement than impact management.   Thanks for stopping by and I hope you’ll be back next Monday for another edition of the WRAP Up, my Weekly Research, Advocacy and Policy Update.   Jenny North is Director of Policy and Strategy at Impetus Trust. http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/february/25/wrap-up-25-february-2013/ http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/february/25/wrap-up-25-february-2013/ Mon, 25 February 2013 12:17:00 Jenny North http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/february/18/wrap-up-18-february-2013/ This week has been a big one for sector news. We have a lot to get through this week, so eyes down and concentrate!    1. The Stanford Social Innovation Review is such a great resource discussing strategies for charities, foundations and socially responsible businesses. I’m pleased to say they have featured a   blog  by Impetus, discussing the Social Innovation Fund.  2. On 11 February, Big Society Capital launched their  Evidencing Social Value  project, which is aimed at helping investors develop social investment strategies, as well as guidance for organisations on what they need to be doing to attract investments.  3. An  interesting article  about the experience of failed social entrepreneurs, and their experience of raising money next time round. It raises the question of whether the experiences of social entrepreneurs in this situation are different to those of their more traditional counterparts. Is having a failed social enterprise start-up under your belt worse than a mainstream flop when it comes to attracting investors?  4. The Resolution Foundation released their latest  research  on squeezed families – the gist being that those with household incomes around between £12-30k (1 in 3 working age households) are really struggling with essential living costs. In 2010-11, real incomes fell right across the income distribution and most of all at the very top rather than in the middle or bottom. As a result, the latest year saw the biggest decline in income inequality in the last 50 years. But what will happen when we return to growth? As page 15 of the report shows, in the boom, the low-paid almost completely missed out on the proceeds of growth.  Eagle-eared readers may have heard President Obama talking about the same thing in his  State of the Union  address this week – declaring that a rising middle class is key to returning the US to growth, and pledging to increase the minimum wage. Ed Miliband spoke on 14 February  on the same topics :  living wage, more middle-income jobs and lower tax burden on the low-paid. This is definitely looking like a theme now, and it’s worth thinking about where it leaves the unemployed, particularly the lowest-skilled, in policy terms.  5. State of the Union bonus: Obama declared his intention to offer universal pre-school education –  this article  demonstrates how far the US is from making this a reality, but highlights some nascent great practice in individual states.  6. A  blog  that looks dry but is really passionate about the need to match the greater flexibility being offered to private and voluntary sector organisations delivering public services in terms of how they deliver services, with increased accountability for how well they do it. This author does mention the fact that flexibility produces desirable innovation. But I can’t help feeling that if the voluntary sector is to be expected to innovate and take risks with delivery AND be accountable for when these risks don’t pay off, and pay the financial price for failure, the margins to be made are going to have to be bigger!  7. What might Impetus look like at 100? This is how the  Rockefeller Foundation  is celebrating its birthday – by finding and funding new innovators.  8. Fast Company released their list of the  50 most innovative companies  - entertaining. Check out Sproxil at number 7 – a company where the original business plan didn’t work at all, but who found a (socially valuable) new purpose. And to be a party-pooper: Amazon may be Number 2, but their ‘innovations’ in employment practices are strongly criticised  here .  9. And finally, a very quick read: NCVO’s  Top 10 Campaigns for Political Change . Demonstrates how most successful advocacy campaigns are reactive rather than proactive.    Thanks for taking the time to stop by, be sure to come back next week for another Jenny North is Director of Policy and Strategy at Impetus Trust. http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/february/18/wrap-up-18-february-2013/ http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/february/18/wrap-up-18-february-2013/ Mon, 18 February 2013 10:33:00 Jenny North http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/february/11/wrap-up-11-february-2013/ This week there has been a lot of talk about money and evaluation, from differing viewpoints on payment by results, to discussions on public spending. I also take a look at findings and initiatives in US to draw on learnings from across the pond.   1. A lively article suggesting that payment by results creates bureaucracy and turns charity employees into liars looking to game the system of measuring results and getting paid for what you’ve achieved. The author will be speaking at an event in Manchester in March, which sets out the bold thesis that measuring outcomes is bad. This will be a useful contribution if it increases the chances of people genuinely using outcomes/impact as a performance tool, rather than a box-ticking exercise to get funding. 2. Talking of payment by results, more evidence was presented this week on the negative effect the Work Programme is having on small charities operating as sub-contractors. 3. An FT article (registration required) on the real picture vis-a-vis public spending cuts, and why some people are questioning whether there are any cuts at all. 4. Put some time aside for this long, but extremely readable blog post on Social Impact Bonds, which explains the new Future for Children Bond by Allia designed to stop children entering care. 5. An internal paper from the US Hewlett Foundation puts forward their seven principles of evaluation. The important takeaway is the fact they see evaluation findings as a clear part of strategy-setting. 6. This is an anti-poverty initiative in the US looking to mobilise communities to take action themselves. Their definition of the drivers of entrenched poverty is worth a look.   A bit of food for thought! Thanks for stopping by and be sure to check back next week for another instalment of my weekly review. Jenny North is Director of Policy and Strategy at Impetus Trust. http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/february/11/wrap-up-11-february-2013/ http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/february/11/wrap-up-11-february-2013/ Mon, 11 February 2013 10:58:00 Jenny North http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/february/4/wrap-up-4-february-2013/ This week’s policy update takes a look at childcare, which has been in the political spotlight as of late, as well as a very interesting article by Bill Gates in the Wall Street Journal on the importance of impact measurement. 1. Childcare continues to be uncharacteristically high on the political agenda with the government’s Affordable Childcare Commission finally reporting. In a nutshell, the government proposes to relax staff to child ratios ‘in line with other European countries’. As you’ve probably heard, this is not straightforward, as other European countries tend to employ better-qualified, better-paid staff. The report proposes to increase the qualification of staff in England and Wales, but there is no mention of supply-side funding to offer salaries commensurate with higher qualification. Private childcare providers usually operate on very narrow margins and so it is hard to see how they will offer higher salaries and lower fees to parents simply by relaxing ratios – which has not been welcomed by the sector . Policy Exchange released a report to coincide with the Commission, which goes further on the need to make sure childcare is high quality as well as affordable, and concludes that too much childcare is not good quality enough to drive good outcomes for children, particularly the most disadvantaged.   The Guardian put out a useful piece on some of the key elements: the relationship of ratios and qualifications to outcomes, international comparisons and costs of childcare in the UK. 2. Hopefully, you’ve already read this great blog thatI posted about last week! Well, here’s Part 2 – where the author argues that if you care about outcomes for the most disadvantaged, the evidence on the side of providing targeted pre-school education to children in the greatest need, rather than universal pre-school education for all. Definitely worth a read, in light of the current debate in the UK. 3. A nice article from philanthropy.com on the perils of charities assuming that a Development Director will solve all woes, and relieve a CEO of the responsibility to fundraise – leading to unrealistic expectations, and high turnover of fundraising staff. The huge number of ads for Heads of Fundraising in the charity press each week indicate that this isn’t just an American problem. 4. An article by Bill Gates on the importance of measuring outcomes and doing what the data tells you –mainly developing world, but useful on the importance of setting specific, measurable goals when trying to change the world. Be sure to check back next week for another instalment of the weekly policy review. Jenny North is Director of Policy and Strategy at Impetus Trust. http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/february/4/wrap-up-4-february-2013/ http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/february/4/wrap-up-4-february-2013/ Mon, 04 February 2013 12:00:00 Jenny North http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/january/29/wrap-up-29-january-2013/ This week’s policy update looks into the constraints charities face in attracting media attention, a detailed look at the challenges of the American Head Start programme and a well-received report released by Impetus and NPC. 1. A mass of twitter activity surrounded this  Guardian article  on whether charities are compromising their campaigning voices to keep government contracts/funding, and the  Independent Review  on which it was based. Dependence on statutory funding inevitably makes it difficult for charities to bite the hand that feeds, but it is also true that the media tends to only want to hear from charities when they have a ‘crisis story’ about government policy. Charities that want to say something critical but less dramatic, or more nuanced, would struggle to get much coverage for their ‘campaign’. 2. A  Harvard Business Review blog  from Ronald Cohen sells the need for capital to back organisations creating social return through Social Impact Bonds. It all makes perfect sense, but doesn’t address the problem that too few organisations provide outcome or impact measurements that would give investors sufficient comfort that they were facing the ‘limited downside risk’ that Sir Ronald says is essential. 3. This is a must-read for those interested in early years education – a  lengthy blog  about the lack of impact generated for low-income children by the US’s famous Head Start programme, and policymakers’ difficulty to face up to this evidence. It ends suggesting two ways that policymakers might quickly respond to avoid a continued waste of public money on an ineffective programme. I’m not sure there is much evidence to indicate that his second suggestion – effectively vouchers for low-income parents to buy pre-school education – would have an impact on school readiness outcomes. 4. The Intergenerational Foundation released  interesting short report  highlighting how spending power on ‘luxuries’ is overwhelmingly concentrated amongst the baby boomers and that spending on all categories by the under 30s is flattening out or falling. 5. And – hoorah! –our  report on collaboration  between charities, produced in partnership with NPC, was released to plenty of media coverage, and a well-attended, lively launch event. Please read! Thanks for stopping by this week. Don’t forget to check back next week  for my weekly policy review. Jenny North is Director of Policy and Strategy at Impetus Trust. http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/january/29/wrap-up-29-january-2013/ http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/january/29/wrap-up-29-january-2013/ Tue, 29 January 2013 11:33:00 Daniela Barone Soares http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/january/28/to-make-the-change-we-want-in-the-world,-we-must-work-together/ The funny thing about mergers is that, by the time you go public with an announcement , you’ve been eating, breathing and dreaming the subject for several months. With the guiding principles agreed and initial thinking in place, you prepare to tell the world your news and wait enthusiastically for the rush of interest and questions. For me, that day is today, and I am thrilled to announce the intention to merge Impetus with The Private Equity Foundation (PEF). The sparks of new interest will fuel the exciting early days of our proposed new organisation. And questions, not all of which we can answer now, will inevitably generate their own sparks of understanding. But for the moment, for me, the important thing is to stay focused on how venture philanthropy can help some of the most deprived people in the UK, especially children and young people growing up in our society. Travelling around the UK last year, what struck me was just how many people were stuck in poverty. On one trip to Glasgow, I had the chance to meet a group of individuals being helped by one of Impetus’s portfolio charities, Street League . They all had a different story about their past, but not getting a fair start in life, some family trouble, poor engagement with education, and unemployment were the main themes. The inspiring thing was how determined each person was to overcome the challenges they faced, and that they had come to appreciate they needed some support. This is where we – and other organisations in the voluntary sector – often step in to do so and do good work. These people are working hard to solve their own problems, trying something they haven’t tried before, but this time with just a little help from somebody who understands exactly what sort of help to provide. They recognised they couldn’t do it alone. That experience, and many others like it, stayed with me long after I left the communities I visited. If the challenge is to help as many people as possible in such way that they can become positively engaged with society, through education, training or jobs – and there are so many who would benefit from help – I became increasingly aware that we were going to have to team up with other like-minded organisations to make it happen. What the latest Impetus research found is that collaboration amongst charities is increasingly the way forward, but the beneficiary – or the impact on the people helped by charities – must be at the core of making that decision. In order to make the change we want in the world, we must recognise that we can’t always do it on our own.  My vision for venture philanthropy is that it is the platform that really elevates the solutions we know are working well to a much larger scale. If something is innovative – new and better than what has been done before – it deserves to be given the best chance to change more disadvantaged lives. In our case, the UK’s two leading venture philanthropy organisations knew we could be more effective and have a greater impact together. And by combining efforts to turbo-charge our work, to extend the reach of those organisations with the potential to change the status quo, we hope to have a better chance at really moving the needle on the most persistent social problems. In the last ten years, both Impetus and PEF have shown how effective venture philanthropy is in identifying and supporting the best of these charities to scale up their impact, become more effective and more sustainable. We are determined to help charities and social enterprises become better at what they do and help more children and young people to get the start in life they deserve. We are merging to pool our expertise and our support, and to redouble our determination to help many more people solve their own problems with the help of the organisations we support. I am beyond delighted that our organisations are joining forces. I hope the world will be inspired by our determination to break the cycle of poverty that has affected poor families for generations, and will continue to do so unless we work together. Determination is the stuff that people who want to make a change in the world – their world – are made of. Back to the Impetus blog http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/january/28/to-make-the-change-we-want-in-the-world,-we-must-work-together/ http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/january/28/to-make-the-change-we-want-in-the-world,-we-must-work-together/ Mon, 28 January 2013 11:32:00 Daniela Barone Soares http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/january/23/where-collaboration-starts/ Our new report , co-authored with NPC, sets out the four most important principles for initiating a collaboration that can really deliver for charities – and their beneficiaries. I believe that anything a charity does should advance its strategic goals, and collaborations are no exception. The report isn’t meant to make you rush to collaborate with the next person or organisation you meet at a networking conference. Of course, it’s important to actively seek out potential partners, even when there is no tender or application in sight, so that you have the luxury of time to thoughtfully consider the best way to collaborate for great impact. But to get started, there are crucial conversations that begin within your organisation to make sure you are “collaboration-ready”. Trust is a vital component in an effective working partnership and however good the relationship is between chief executives, it is equally important that frontline staff trust their new partners to do their best. If this isn’t there, resentment may hinder the earliest days of the new venture and jeopardise the entire endeavour. Your team, especially those directly involved in the joined-up work, needs to be consulted, engaged and motivated at every stage of the process. So how can a chief executive get it right? To get you started, here are a few pointers based on the Impetus experience working with many small and medium-sized charities and social enterprises: Open attitude Before a collaboration is on the horizon, make it clear to staff that you’re open to partnership, and that you don’t think your organisation has the final word on getting good outcomes. This fosters an open attitude that respects what others can bring to the table. Respect the experts Your team is working with beneficiaries every day. They have their finger on the pulse, so to speak, and they know what is needed. When you’re thinking about partners, ask them whose services they think could best complement or extend your own. Incite enthusiasm Collaborations need energy to get off the ground. Excitement and enthusiasm will pay dividends when the inevitable problems arise and require the oomph to get through. Sell your team the big picture early on so that they are on board and can imagine the difference that will be made in the lives of your beneficiaries. Listen to concerns Your team may have worries, which is natural when there is a major change in the status quo. Some of these may seem small compared to the big picture, but you should make it clear that you want to hear them. It will be important to keep this channel open so that you can assess whether changes to the plan or strategy are necessary to keep the focus on the beneficiary. Continuous reflection When work is underway, take the time to ask questions. Not just “Is this working for the beneficiary?”, but also “Is this making your job easier or harder? Are there problems with the partnership that management can solve?” By committing to a process of continuous reflection and improvement, you ensure that the partnership is adaptable and truly centred on making a bigger impact. The “them versus us” mentality will undermine a collaboration faster than anything else. The activities above will help you guard against it and also reinforce that this effort is about getting the best for your beneficiaries. Their outcomes will determine the success of the collaboration and these outcomes are determined by whether your team can adapt to a new way of working. The time you spend engaging them will be the most well-spent in the undeniably time-consuming business of getting a collaboration going – and making it a true success. http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/january/23/where-collaboration-starts/ http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/january/23/where-collaboration-starts/ Wed, 23 January 2013 19:24:00 Jenny North http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/january/22/wrap-up-22-january-2013/ Welcome back to this weeks policy update. All in all it has been a very quiet week, but there have still been some interesting developments.  1. An  intriguing story : the academic report commissioned by the Department for Education for the Affordable Childcare Commission has not been released as its findings do not support the Government’s desires to relax the staff to children ratios. The Commission should finally report next week. I attended this Resolution Foundation  event  Thursday 17 January. 2. The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) released a  report  on what the changing nature of the Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS) environment means for (very) small charities and how microfinance and intelligent commissioning might allow them to survive. 3. National Council for Voluntary Organisations’ (NVCO)  reaction  to last week’s announcement of more PBR in the justice system - worth noting too that they have a  PBR Working Group . 4. Finally, expect these type of bids to influence 2015’s manifestos to be coming thick and fast –  this one  is from young Tory modernisers Bright Blue. Payment by results isn’t going anywhere in their vision for public services, and high-quality, developmentally-focussed childcare is a central plank of their vision for educational improvement. Thanks for stopping by, be sure to check us out next week for more policy updates. If you would like a friendly reminder, be sure to follow us on Twitter  @ImpetusTrust . Or if you have come across information you think should be included, feel free to email me at  Jenny@impetus.org.uk . Jenny North is Director of Policy and Strategy at Impetus Trust. http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/january/22/wrap-up-22-january-2013/ http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/january/22/wrap-up-22-january-2013/ Tue, 22 January 2013 17:26:00 Dan Corry http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/january/22/the-key-to-collaborative-success/ The charity sector exists to do the best it can for those in need. It is this sense of mission that makes it so unique. But charities must continually ask themselves: are you helping those you wanted to? And are you helping them in a cost effective way so that the resources you have make the greatest possible difference? Organisations can only get better by understanding whether or not they are successfully achieving the outcomes that they seek. As we heard from David Robinson of Community Links at our conference  last week , impact measurement is fundamental to improving mission, and should inform strategy, tactics and everyday behaviour. And thankfully, it is becoming a growing priority for charities. But sometimes the only way to be really effective is to work with others. This might be because you can’t scale up on your own, or because the needs of your beneficiaries are complicated and require expertise in other areas. Or it might be because as the people you help progress along their journey—a care pathway for example—they need different types of help at various stages. As resources become increasingly scarce, the need to provide the right services at the right  time and avoid unnecessary duplication across the sector is becoming ever more critical. Right now changes to government commissioning are also driving the collaboration agenda;  in many cases, in order to be in a position to compete for public service contracts, charities need to be collaboration-ready. As NPC’s survey of charities’ experiences of commissioning   When the going gets tough   showed, this is partly because contracts are getting bigger and many charities struggle to pitch for them on their own, and partly because contracts are increasingly  offered  on a payment by results basis—and hence in arrears and with a lot of risk attached. This drives charities into needing to work with bigger players, including for-profit players, with decent balance sheets. So these are major incentives to collaboration as a way to access work,  grow and improve services. But that doesn’t mean it’s easy. Some charities are trying to create consortia so they are in a position to compete; others are joining up with corporate suppliers. As well as the benefits already discussed, these often contribute to new learning. And that’s why NPC and venture philanthropists Impetus Trust  joined forces to research some of the preconditions for collaborative success. In a report published today,  Collaborating for Impact , we look at some of the crucial factors: 1. Keeping the focus on beneficiaries:  any collaboration should fit clearly into the charities’ strategy on getting the best possible outcomes for the people that they exist to help. 2. Understanding the financial implications:  as agreements and contracts grow in complexity, charities need to invest in understanding their costs and cash-flow to ensure that collaboration is viable and finances will not put a strain on the partnership. 3. Understanding and demonstrating impact:  evidence of impact attracts potential partners and offers reassurance around the quality of organisations’ work. 4. Treating organisational culture as key to success:  certain charity habits—such as the tendency to fiercely defend independence—can be a barrier to effective collaboration. Here trust is key, and the focus on beneficiaries should cut through cultural concerns over credit, competition and sovereignty. Collaborations can be tricky to navigate and there are many accompanying risks. But where care is taken to align incentives and get the cultural match right, collaboration can move us forward in meeting the needs of beneficiaries has the potential to really improve the sector’s collective impact. Dan Corry joined NPC as Chief Executive in October 2011, following a varied career in public policy and economics. Originally published on the NPC blog . http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/january/22/the-key-to-collaborative-success/ http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/january/22/the-key-to-collaborative-success/ Tue, 22 January 2013 17:01:00 Jenny North http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/january/14/wrap-up-14-january-2013/ Welcome to the Impetus Trust WRAP Up, a Weekly Research, Advocacy and Policy Update, where I draw together the week’s most important, interesting, and useful news, research and thought-leadership on the subjects closest to our heart. These include poverty, early years, social investment, reoffending, innovation, philanthropy and voluntary sector brilliance. But you can expect to see a lot more than that too. In this inaugural blog we take a look at the key reports and findings released this week as well as two great articles on social innovation:  1. The Institute of Economic Affairs has released a new report arguing for a “market-based” approach to fighting poverty and critiquing the left-wing poverty lobby’s calls for increased cash transfers from the state. Broadly speaking, a market-based approach to poverty seems to mean building more affordable housing, deregulating childcare, removing employee protections, and liberalising the Common Agricultural Policy. Some of these do seem more nebulous than others, but it’s worth a read of the executive summary. 2. Secretary of State for Justice  Chris Grayling announced his plans to open up the provision of (some) probation services to the private and voluntary sectors. £500k (not a typo) of capacity building money for the voluntary sector to allow them to participate on less unequal terms has been announced, though the application process isn’t yet known. We wonder if Grayling might not look back to his old department and introduce a Ministry of Justice Innovation Fund, to get more charities really ready to use social finance in delivering public contracts. 3. There was a lot of speculation that the Coalition’s Mid-Term Review would contain details of a tax break for childcare, but in the end it didn’t. Childcare Minister Liz Truss trailed the findings of the upcoming report of the Affordable Childcare Commission, confirming that the government is likely to relax the ratio requirements, and simplify funding streams. The IPPR responded by questioning Truss’s assumptions about what happens in other countries, and arguing that demand-side subsidies don’t make childcare more affordable in the long-term. 4. A great article from SSIR about how one of the Social Innovation Fund’s intermediaries has used its funding to scale a community development programme with training and employment outcomes. It includes three great “takeaways” about what a capacity-building partner, like Impetus, brings to the rapid scale-up of a successful innovation. For more information read our Social Innovation Fund report . 5.  An SSIR article on “complete capital” – a term which could be used to describe what venture philanthropy provides to an organisation. Some nice case studies of social innovations being supported to access financial, intellectual, human and social capital, and finally to link up with the state to make the greatest possible impact. Be sure to stop by next week to read the next installment of the Impetus Trust WRAP Up. If you would like a friendly reminder, be sure to follow us on Twitter @ImpetusTrust . Or if you have come across information you think should be included, feel free to email me at Jenny North is the Director of Policy & Strategy at Impetus Trust. http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/january/14/wrap-up-14-january-2013/ http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2013/january/14/wrap-up-14-january-2013/ Mon, 14 January 2013 13:30:00 Meredith Niles http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2012/december/21/trustees-park-the-politeness-and-put-performance-first/ The annual celebration of Trustees’ Week, which takes place every November, is effort led by the Charity Commission and other sector partners to encourage the public to think about charity trusteeship. A high-performing board is a key ingredient in the recipe for successfully scaling up social solutions, which is why a board and governance review is an essential part of the package that Impetus provides its investees. For me, serving as a charity trustee is a no-brainer. It gives me an opportunity to support charities whose work I admire with my professional skills. My previous life analysing financial statements holds me in good stead on the finance sub-committees on which I serve. It gives me credibility and empathy when I am speaking to the boards of our investees about their governance, and I have an opportunity to share best practice in both directions. I think it’s fantastic that the Charity Commission and others encourage the public to think about charity trusteeship each year with Trustees’ Week. But actually, I find myself thinking about trusteeship quite a bit even without an organised event to inspire me. I would estimate that over the past five years, I have easily spent 1,000 hours on charity board work, primarily as a participant – attending, preparing for, and following up after board and subcommittee meetings – but also as an observer, a facilitator and a trainer.  In that time, I have had an opportunity to witness lots of practice – in most cases very good, but sometimes with room for improvement. Where do things go wrong? In my opinion, it often comes down to trustees being too polite. Of course trustees are inherently nice people; they are, with rare exceptions, giving their time for free to causes about which they care passionately. However, an instinctive sense of decorum can, if left unchecked, get in the way of the board exercising its responsibilities effectively. It is not rare to hear a charity executive lament the fact that a new trustee, recruited for his or her strong track record of driving corporate performance, seems to have parked that hard-charging attitude at the door. While this might make for nice, sociable meetings, no one – not least the charity’s service users – benefits from unfairly low expectations of the executive team. Trustees should not be afraid to ask tough questions and play the role of critical friend. Nor should they be unwilling to challenge themselves. Just because trustees are volunteers doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have high expectations for their performance. The problem of trustees consistently missing meetings, not contributing constructively, or otherwise not pulling their own weight may be widely recognised – frankly, even by the culprits themselves – but no one feels comfortable being the one to say something, so the behaviour continues. The problem of boards getting too cosy with the executive team and with each other is hardly unique, either among charities or, indeed, with corporate boards ,  And, I admit from personal experience, that it can often be seductively easy just to “go with the flow.” So what is the solution? Institutionalise best practice. Exercise open recruitment to ensure trustees are selected for what they bring to the table, not just because they have an existing relationship with someone in the organisation. Set clear expectations for trustees at the outset and have processes in place (possibly a standing Governance committee or formal annual review process) to monitor performance. That way, conversations about performance are de-personalised. Be transparent about terms of service and have honest and open conversations about when it’s time to move on. You’d be surprised how many long-serving trustees would be grateful for the opportunity to leave gracefully but feel too obligated to the organisation to suggest doing so, while at the same time, no one else feels confident to bring up the subject of retirement out of fear of hurt feelings. Most importantly, keep in mind the objectives the charity has agreed and make sure they are being delivered. If a board is really finding it difficult to provide sufficient critique, you can even think about appointing someone to play the role of challenger in the meeting until it comes more naturally to everyone. Practice makes perfect. Fellow trustees, let’s collectively commit to parking our politeness and putting performance first. A variation of this piece by Meredith Niles first appeared on the Civil Society Governance blog on 9 November 2012. Meredith Niles is an Investment Director at Impetus Trust. http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2012/december/21/trustees-park-the-politeness-and-put-performance-first/ http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2012/december/21/trustees-park-the-politeness-and-put-performance-first/ Fri, 21 December 2012 10:56:00 Chiku Bernardi http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2012/december/19/resilience-will-help-you-through-boom-and-bust/ For the last three years I have helped to support a portfolio of charities and social enterprises working to help more young people from disadvantaged background get into education, training or employment. Through my work I meet many young adults, like Marek who is on the cover of the 2011/12 Impetus Impact Report , who want to break out of their downward spiral and take control of their lives. With the unemployment rate for 16-24 year olds in the UK reaching nearly 22 per cent , it is no surprise that young people often find getting a job challenging. Young people without qualifications find this even more challenging, but for young people without qualifications, and lacking essential “life skills” like resilience, self-control and motivation, finding a job can seem impossible even in a booming economy. At Impetus my work is mainly on our Youth and Social Opportunity Initiative. It has been proven that concentrating on these three areas can turn lives around and break the intergenerational cycle perpetuating disadvantage. Still, we recognise that many young people are not prepared to transfer immediately into education, training or employment, and need to work on more fundamental changes to their attitude or motivation before they can engage with society and the economy in a productive way. The organisations in our portfolio are not working with the "low-hanging fruit"—young people who, with a bit of CV-sharpening and interview practice, can move quickly into employment—but rather work to address the root causes of unemployment for young people at risk of social exclusion. For example, the impact that one of the charities I support directly, Resurgo Trust , has on Marek’s life and the lives of many others is down to their time spent developing confidence, determination and resilience in young people who have not been able to develop these skills on their own. Research dating back to the 1990s has revealed that, for children growing up in disadvantaged circumstances, the acquisition of these “character skills” are a determining factor in developing higher IQ scores . Resilience—the ability to bounce back from shocks and rebuffs that could otherwise derail you—is crucial, as is being able to exercise self-control and responding well to external discipline. Social and emotional awareness allow young people to form personal and professional relationships that create opportunities and provide support. It is the belief in oneself, a sense that one’s actions can change things, which is the intangible, yet vital skill turning passive acceptance of one’s situation into a decision to actively seize an opportunity. A childhood beginning in poverty and experiencing relationship breakdown, abuse or parental imprisonment (all overwhelmingly more likely to be experienced by a child living in poverty) is more likely to produce adults lacking the ability to regulate their behaviour and cope with setbacks . The experience of our charities and the vast majority of research show that the ability to regulate behaviour and cope with setbacks can be learned later in life, in school, adolescence and beyond. Government commissioners are eager to identify and work with organisations that manage what the state has failed, getting disengaged young people into employment. Unfortunately their commissioning frameworks are simply not conducive at recognising, measuring and valuing less tangible interim outcomes, such as coaching a young man to give up the gratification of a late night and instead persuading him to set an alarm and rise early every day. Less tangible outcomes like this are crucial in preparing him to enter the world of work. By forgetting about these important middle steps, commissioners run the risk of only supporting organisations that achieve the end goal of finding employment, and completely cut out the organisations that are concerned with the essential preparation work of character and self-development. These vital steps, which build social and emotional capabilities, are clearly more difficult to assess than a milestone like getting a job. Interim outcomes are difficult to quantify and assess objectively, and often one must wait before tangible external benefits manifest themselves. But however difficult, it is not impossible. Validated tools that yield robust, quantitative results without the need for expensive expert evaluations do exist. For example, a recent report by the Young Foundation highlights a selection of tools able to assess “the vital intangible”. There is also increasing recognition among charities that these interim outcomes can and should be measured. Despite all the challenges, impact measurement is growing. Getting a young person engaged in the economy and society as a whole is a journey comprised of many steps, and the first may be the most decisive. Recognising and rewarding organisations that implement these steps is crucial if commissioned services are to help those least likely to make it on their own. Chiku Bernardi is an Investment Director at Impetus Trust. http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2012/december/19/resilience-will-help-you-through-boom-and-bust/ http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2012/december/19/resilience-will-help-you-through-boom-and-bust/ Wed, 19 December 2012 11:39:00 Sarah Young http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2012/october/29/giving-your-high-value-skills-to-charity-can-create-a-huge-impact/ Earlier this month nearly a hundred of Impetus’s most valued supporters gathered for a reception. These supporters are our executive volunteers and the reception celebrated the impact their support has had over the last ten years. This past year alone, individuals within our pro bono network have donated more than £2.8m worth of their day job skills to Impetus and our portfolio organisations. Impetus has a long history of encouraging expert volunteers to use their commercial skills and experience to support our ambitious portfolio charities, who are chosen for their strong leadership and potential for scalable, meaningful impact in the areas of education, training and employment. I have had the chance to be involved with over 400 of these types of projects and I have personally seen the value-add for both the portfolio charity and the executive volunteer. After our investment team work with charity management teams to identify key projects required to build their capacity, I step in and scope out exactly how a pro bono expert can make a tangible difference. Our volunteers come to us directly or through our corporate partners and deliver a range of projects in the areas of law, accountancy, mentoring, HR, IT, marketing, strategy and business planning. The input from such highly skilled volunteers, combined with the two other elements of our model – core funding and intensive management support – help significantly amplify the impact that these voluntary organisations have on the people and communities they serve. There will always be room for hands-on team-building and volunteering activities, but in my view, charities benefit far more from practical application of expert advice and guidance.High-level volunteering opportunities can be used to reward and incentivise staff with very satisfying work that reflects the values of the organisation. Impetus’s first pro bono corporate partner, OC&C Strategy Consultants, sees it this way, too. Founding partner Chris Outram has even said that, “our staff clearly get a great deal of reward out of doing something that is not purely commercial. Anything that motivates our staff and teaches them something new about the world is very valuable to OC&C.” Volunteering is moving up the Government agenda and harnessing the spirit of the Olympic volunteers is top of many minds. A £20m Social Action Fund has been launched to create a broad programme of support for social action. Our expertise in executive volunteering has been formally recognised with a Social Action Fund grant that is allowing us to create more opportunities for professionals to engage with high impact strategic volunteering. For the last three years it has been my privilege to work at this intersection of the private and voluntary sectors, with experienced individuals passionate about making a difference to the lives of those in need. (Read my top tips about working with highly skilled volunteers here .) With support from the Social Action Fund, Impetus has been able to engage a dedicated Pro bono Manager, Amanda Crawford , in order to expand our work in this area yet further. As we celebrate the contribution of our pro bono experts over the past decade, we are looking forward to the next ten years of highly impactful pro bono support to unlock the potential of our portfolio charities, enabling them to have a truly transformative impact on poverty and economic disadvantage in the UK. If you are interested in giving your skills and expertise in this way, please get in touch . Sarah Young is an Investment Director at Impetus Trust. http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2012/october/29/giving-your-high-value-skills-to-charity-can-create-a-huge-impact/ http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2012/october/29/giving-your-high-value-skills-to-charity-can-create-a-huge-impact/ Mon, 29 October 2012 15:35:00 Daniela Barone Soares http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2012/october/18/a-world-apart,-technology-empowers-leading-venture-philanthropy-organisations-to-collaborate-and-innovate/ Last month, for the first time, four of the world’s leading venture philanthropy organisations came together to share insight and to discuss common achievements, trends and challenges. It was a first for me personally, too! Brought together by the power of Cisco’s TelePresence , it felt like we were in the same room but what was more surprising, or maybe reassuring, is that no matter where in the world we were, it often felt like we were on the same page in our experiences of venture philanthropy. Around the table were Impetus in London, New Profit in the United States, LIFT Philanthropy Partners in Canada and Social Ventures Australia . Impetus is the pioneer of venture philanthropy in the UK and our peers around the world have similar track records. Three issues came to the fore in our first meeting: the question of how to increase our impact through our portfolio; the importance of strong relationships with our portfolio organisations; and our experiences of working with government. All of us have debated whether we should be providing more organisations with support or back fewer organisations and provide a higher level of investment that could achieve significant scale and impact. It’s a difficult question, because, as natural as it may seem to focus resources on those with a proven track record, we are also acutely aware that this could result in missing a trick with another innovative and transformational organisation. There is also a trend towards focusing efforts on groups of organisations targeting the same social issue in different ways. At Impetus we have the Youth and Social Opportunity Initiative , Reducing Reoffending Initiative and Early Years Initiative . This enables all of us to intensively target a single social issue and achieve a greater scale of impact while still supporting a range of organisations. By working with a number of organisations addressing the same social problems, we achieve a greater depth of knowledge and impact. Although policy makers in different countries have different priorities, there is still the opportunity to share strategies for advocacy success and see what is transferable. This links with the issue of relationships. Helping portfolio charity leaders network with each other so that they can learn from each other and raise each other’s game is a key part of the success that comes from a focused approach. We encourage social entrepreneurs to think strategically and identify where they can shape the entire system together to solve the problem for all. We intensify our collective impact by working together and sharing our learning with one another. There is also a growing trend of working with government. For example, in the UK Impetus, with the Sutton Trust, is delivering the Government’s Education Endowment Foundation , which is targeting the most disadvantaged pupils in England. Public funds enable us to scale up high impact venture philanthropy efforts while we are able to convene a wide range of influencers, including corporate partners, high-value donors, social entrepreneurs and policy makers that are valuable for informing government decision-making. We also have access to grassroots communities, which enables us to tackle some of the toughest social issues far more effectively than government could alone and makes us valuable and trusted partners. In the same way that we encourage our portfolio organisations to strengthen themselves through collaboration, we hope to do the same by engaging with each other around the world. All four organisations are committed to sharing our combined expertise so that at a global level we are supporting each other to achieve maximum impact. In our case, it means scaling up and disseminating solutions to break the cycle of poverty. http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2012/october/18/a-world-apart,-technology-empowers-leading-venture-philanthropy-organisations-to-collaborate-and-innovate/ http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2012/october/18/a-world-apart,-technology-empowers-leading-venture-philanthropy-organisations-to-collaborate-and-innovate/ Thu, 18 October 2012 15:16:00 Daniela Barone Soares http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2012/october/01/the-big-society-and-the-fate-of-social-investment/ When people come to assess the success of the Big Society, one initiative will surely stand out – the setting up of Big Society Capital. The establishment of this provider of wholesale social finance, funded with £600m from dormant bank accounts, is a globally unique “big bet” on the potential of capital to unlock the power of social entrepreneurship – provided they can pay it back with interest. Political commentators with little knowledge of the social sector may think the Big Society is just hot air and platitudes, but those of us working on social innovation and public sector reform know that Big Society Capital is serious stuff – a game-changer if it works. But the question of whether it can work depends on which problem it was designed to fix.   In an ideal world, Big Society Capital would have been designed to meet the needs of a capital-savvy social sector demanding access to venture capital to allow them to start delivering services already proven to generate both a social and financial return. In turn, a cash-strapped state would benefit from private investors sharing the cost of providing first class public services.  We know we have a cash-strapped state, but do we really have a mature market of social enterprises making demonstrable social impact, able to produce a return on investment and with the capacity to absorb large amounts of capital? At the moment, there isn’t much hard evidence either way, but recent research from BIG Lottery Fund reports on the “investment-readiness” of the social sector. The impetus for this work comes from the conviction of many sector experts that the sector simply isn’t ready and that the vast majority of charities do not have the infrastructure in place to deal with investment, the responsibilities and the activities it involves. Big Society Capital, with its goal of transforming the social investment market, supplies the investment but cannot stimulate the right kind of demand. This is not a recipe for market success.   The missing trick is the first step: the relatively minuscule committed investment in the capacity of the most innovative and effective charities and social enterprises. This is the work that Impetus and a few peer organisations do, and this type of capacity-building needs to be much more widespread and accessible to social sector organisations. There is an urgent need for funding that allows social sector organisations to scale up and extend their reach to help more people – precisely the goals most likely to lead to an organisation becoming investment ready.   Big Society Capital is exciting, but it risks becoming a victim of its own pioneer status. One scenario is that the social investment vehicles it will fund end up indistinguishable from ethical investors, providing capital to businesses that do no harm, but not much good either. Worse, social investment might distort the funding environment so that voluntary and social sector organisations are pulled away from their primary missions and towards activities that generate a return, but no social value. In this scenario, nobody benefits except private finance.  In the two and a half years until the next election, the government must match its action on providing social investment with action on building the capacity of ambitious and innovative charities. There are many partners willing to help with this work and it should be the primary focus of the government’s engagement with the social sector to 2015. The future’s assessment of the Big Society depends on it.  This piece by Daniela Barone Soares first appeared on Social Enterprise Live on 27 July 2012. http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2012/october/01/the-big-society-and-the-fate-of-social-investment/ http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2012/october/01/the-big-society-and-the-fate-of-social-investment/ Mon, 01 October 2012 14:22:00 Sarah Young http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2012/september/26/six-steps-to-support-your-executive-volunteers/ Impetus has a long history of working with executive volunteers – executeers – who give their time to use their day job skills to support ambitious charities and social enterprises. Through executive volunteering the strength of the business sector and the skills of its professionals can complement the needs and ambition of the voluntary sector. However, in order to maximise the impact of this valuable resource, charities need a well thought out plan to effectively manage these volunteers. Scarce resources and limited capacity mean expert volunteers are in demand in the voluntary sector. Strategic reviews, financial modelling and business planning are often the sole remit of boards and senior management. But why should they be? Expert support for senior management for this type of work, done every day in the business sector, could help put your organisation on a path for growth. Strategic volunteering is not new. For the last ten years, we have relied on a growing network of executive volunteers who give what they're good at and complement the work of our investment directors as we help turbo-charge the growth of smaller charities and help move them from being "good" to "great". Based on our experience, here are a few steps for any organisation seeking to effectively manage high-value executive volunteers: 1. The first step is to determine which area of work would be most valuable to your charity. A "nice to have" project which isn't on the critical path may turn out to be a drain on scarce resources. 2. The next step is to put together a clear brief of what the project will entail, with very specific timelines and deliverables so both sides know what is involved. 3. It is critical to ensure the potential volunteer has the relevant skills and expertise. A CV and track record isn't everything. Working cultures can be different and you need to ensure they are sensitive to the values and ethos of your organisation and have strong communication skills to get the most out of the relationship. 4. A well planned induction and set of briefing materials can go a long way in ensuring a volunteer has the necessary grounding to get the job done efficiently and effectively. 5. Then you need to ensure your team will have enough time to dedicate to getting the best out of the volunteer – you may want to clarify who will be the key point(s) of contact between them and the organisation. 6. Finally, after the project, ask for candid feedback from your volunteer to harvest any thoughts that can help next time. Volunteers are often keen to understand the impact of their work on the charity. Staying in touch will keep them engaged and more likely to remain committed to volunteering and adding value to another project for you in the future. Executeers have the potential to add enormous value to your organisation – and if managed effectively, they can also become your greatest advocates. This blog post is an adaption from a piece by Sarah Young that first appeared in a special feature on managing volunteers in the summer 2012 issue of Charities Management . http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2012/september/26/six-steps-to-support-your-executive-volunteers/ http://www.impetus.org.uk/blog/posts/2012/september/26/six-steps-to-support-your-executive-volunteers/ Wed, 26 September 2012 13:57:00