Recent Posts

In a monumental act of self sacrifice, I missed the first half of the England vs. Slovenia on Wednesday in order to attend a conference on how randomised control trials - experiments to you and me - might help policy makers understand how we can get people (aka citizens) more involved in public policy. The title for what turned out to be a very good seminar was: Is it better to nudge or to think. The seminar was based on work by academics at Manchester and Southampton Universities, including Peter John and Gerry Stoker, who in the past has advised NCVO through his work on local governance. The findings from the research can be found at the Civic Behaviour website.

The researchers tested two approaches: the idea that we can 'nudge' people into doing more things by providing them with information 'cues' that encourage positive, so-called 'pro-social' behaviour. The idea that we can encourage - rather than compel - people to be good has risen up the agenda since the publication of Nudge by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein. In the case of one experiment, the nudge was telling residents of a street how well they compared with a neighbouring street on household recycling. The second approach - whether we can get people to 'think' - asks whether citizens are prepared to engage in deliberation over complex issues. One example here included online-based deliberation forums where over a period of 10 days people were asked to discuss youth anti-social behaviour.

Anorak warning: a few words about methodology. I've referred to these as experiments: the important point here is that these interventions were all compared with 'control groups' were there wasn't an intervention so that the researchers could be reasonably sure that the nudge or think is actually leading to changes in behaviour. There are some people who think randomised control trials should be used by voluntary organisations to demonstrate their outcomes - I'd expect to hear more about this in relation to the outcomes/impact debate in future. By the way, experiments cost between £10-25k each.

So, what do these experiments tell us? The researchers argued that both nudges work particularly well. Surprisingly (to me, anyway) nearly all the nudges worked: so suggesting to people that their street might not recycle as much as the next street encouraged them to increase kerbside food recycling by 6%. Public displaying the names of donors who pledged to donate increase the rate of donations. I got the impression that deliberative exercises can work, but are less successful than nudging. Deliberation is clearly more time consuming and difficult and people's motivations for involvement are complex.

So what? Gerry Stoker made a really interesting point that stuck with me: citizens are willing to change their behaviour, help themselves and help others. People are far more civic minded and prepared to be involved than we give them credit for. The panel discussion, which included Phillip Blond, Matthew Taylor (who admirably left the seminar early to watch the football with his son) and the particularly interesting Toby Blume however highlighted some real challenges for those who to want to build the Big Society with either nudge or think. Questioners asked

•Nudge and think are aimed at solving mistrust in government - but what if it is government doing the nudging or running the deliberative exercises - will people be less responsive because of who is nudging or asking?

•Do nudges only work with simple, easy behaviour changes, like taking rubbish to your household boundary?

•Because these are experiments, do people behave in the way you want them to and therefore will the real world beless successful?

•If nudge and think encourage collaboration and consensus, where does that leave the engaged citizens who don't want to be nudged - what might term the awkward squad?

Much of the discussion then turned to issues of citizen engagement and the Big Society. I would particularly recommend that you have a look at Kevin Harris' write up of this part of the discussion - like Kevin, I was somewhat surprised by some of the comments about a lack of trust in society and the lack of architecture for engagement. NCVO and many others have said this time and again, but just because people don't practice civic engagement it doesn't mean they practice civil engagement. People are prepared to get involved, and they have many reasons for doing so. But they have to feel it is worth it.

One last thought. At the end I talked with the excellent David Wilcox about whether we were trying to overcomplicate some of this: fundraisers always say that despite reams of research on donor motivation, the reason people give to charity is because they are asked. David's response was a very simple typology:

•If you want people to give, ask them

•If you want people to act, support them

•If you want people to talk, listen

The RSA have also been blogging about the Big Society recently, and have some interesting points to make on the topic. How big is big society? How realistic and implementable are the aspirations within the agenda? Could the social networks existing today support this kind of reform? It's worth taking a look at what they have to say.

Some of you might have come across Nonprofit Quarterly, a thoughtful, in-depth publication aimed at sector leaders that looks at issues ranging from ethics to fundraising. A recent special edition on infrastructure is well worth a look for UK people interested in the subject; if you havent got time to look at the full report (which is 72 excellent pages) then here are a few issues from the exec summary (page 11, if you want to look!):

1. Infrastructure is largely targeted at large nonprofits - not enough infrastructure supports small and medium organisations. I'm not convinced the problem is as bad here in the UK, but its nevertheless a point worth discussing. What might be of interest is the call for a "comprehensive, distributed system" of infrastructure support.

2. The 'connective tissue' of infrastructure is even more critical in a recesion. The argument is made that the recession provides a window for smaller grassroots organisations to become more visible and apply their knowledge and skills to help communities - but infrastructure is needed to help them rise to this challenge. There are some well-crafted supporting arguments here that UK infrastructure organisations could use.

3. Well-networked nonprofits are more effective and more collaborative. Using the example of emergency response after the twin towers, it highlights that "well-networked nonprofits were able to identify and distribute resources faster on behalf of their constituents than those that were unconnected". This clearly highlights the role of infrastructure bodies as the glue that binds civil society together.

4. Funding for infrastructure isnt going to the right infrastructure organisations. There are some difficult messages here, in particular the charge that national bodies (with good connections to funders) are taking the lion's share of funding. There is also an argument about who funds (foundations should do more), and the lack of diversity in the funding mix for infrastructure.

5. Infrastructure's increasing research capacity and evidence base is not being applied to improve practice. Ouch. As a researcher, that one hurts. In the UK we are in the middle of building that research capacity, so don't say we weren't warned.

6. Infrastructure organisations have failed to take advantage of new technologies. There's a particular emphasis on how nonprofits haven't used ICT to facilitate collaboration or lower transaction costs.

7. Policy monitoring and advocacy will be crucial in the struggle years ahead. This is self-explanatory, but it jarred with another warning that infrastructure organisations will be using more of their capacity to generate income rather than produce 'public goods' that benefit all of the sector. It warned that there isnt always a recognition that these public goods will never be self-financing.

The report isnt without faults - in particular, the voice of infrastrucure users doesnt come through. The US is also, of course, a very different place to the UK. In particular, there is no CapacityBuilders or ChangeUp in the US. Don Griessman's excellent blog (which is worth following in general) is particularly critical, but in turn identifies different ways forward that are worth debating, such as funding infrastructure by top-slicing programme grants.

But the important point is that it should stimulate dialogue and debate in your infrastructure organsiation about what the next few years should look like and how you address them.

Great article, Kathryn.

So, you might polarise opionions into two camps: the optimists who believe the recent indicators such as the uptick in the housing market or in industrial production figures, and the pessimists who expect us to hit some quite different big numbers: unemployment of 3 million, which may well be timed with unerring accuracy with a general election, and a government spending deficit of £200 billion for the current financial year. (Incidentally, will anyone actually care if technically we are out of recession when unemployment hits the big 3m?)

In other words, is it the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning? For some, the answer to this will be shaped by the arguments currently doing the rounds around public expenditure, and whether public spending should be 'counter-cyclical' (a la Keynes - increase public spending to counter the drop-off in demand from the rest of the economy) or pro-cyclical (cull public spending to deal with the drop off in tax receipts. Larry Elliott provides an excellent discussion of these approaches in recent history.

Much of the current debate in the voluntary sector seems to me to be about the extent to which we are pro- or counter-cyclical and the implications of this. One might hope that as an economic force the sector is counter-cyclical: ie levels of activity and expenditure increase at the bottom of the economic cycle to address the increasing need of those squeezed out of the formal economy. But what if the more difficult reality is true, that we are pro-cyclical, our collective endeavour waning as our resource inputs (such as charitable giving?) decline?

Putting aside the slightly awkward point that at less than 1% of UK GDP the sector's economic contribution is neither here nor there, the perhaps unsurprising evidence is that levels of activity in the voluntary sector are not necessarily related to what is happening in the economy. There are examples of Keynesian jolts: grantmaking foundations maintaining levels of disbursement despite their own investment blues, or frontline organisations mobilising greater numbers of volunteers. New charities continue to be established in years of downturn at similar levels to normal years. On the other hand, evidence seems to suggest that the sector's ability to mobilise donations in recessions reduces, with charitable giving falling. Similarly, in the last recession in 2001/02 the sector's income fell.

So what? Well, for me this highlights that for voluntary organisations the age of austerity is even more an age of uncertainty. Planning cycles that should be thinking of the medium term as 3 years ahead are struggling to cope with the short term of 12 months ahead. The pessimists will undoubtedly highlight the certainty of the public sector recession that Kathryn noted, but as we recently noted, large swathes of the sector receive no public funding and therefore have nothing to lose. So I personally dont think that a voluntary sector recession automatically lags the real economy recession. That's not a prediction that everything will be fine: but in a sector with such divergent component parts, trends analysis is about to get much messier.

This is an interesting experiment that would be akin to a chair of trustees being elected by a charity's supporter base. Clearly not for all - but these experiments are interesting and collectively it will be worth watching to see if they are more widely mimicked. Many seem to be imported from the US - so for example, reports in the last few days talked about proposals to give local authorities to hold Californian style ballots at the same time as local and national elections. I suppose the question might be whether they collectively constitute a trend, a genuine shift towards more a more participative democracy?

Thaler’s book uses charitable giving as an example of the sort of nudge that policy makers could engage in. The two examples are very suited to the american tax system (eg a debit card that aggregates donations for your tax return), but its an interesting idea that people are inherently pro-social in their behaviour (to use a current phrase from economics that seems to be gaining some traction). I suppose the difficult question going forward (for NCVO’s funding commission, for example) is are those who dont give simply lacking in the number of prompts they need? If so, the possibly uncomfortable conclusion could be we need more fundraising ‘asks’?

If you’re looking for insights and help around how to cope in a recession (and who doesn’t?!) then have a look at this presentation from Stuart Etherington, CEO of NCVO: Managing your charity in turbulent times.
It has a look at precendents for the sector in past recessions then puts forward ‘The 5 Ps’: Purpose, Planning, Pennies, People, Partnerships which you should consider. Stuart finishes with an encouraging thought – not all will be equally affected, so it doesn’t have to be you.

I like these quotes from this article:

“We need to be adapting to future needs, not building the same things but bigger.”
“The fact that it worked yesterday does not mean it is going to work tomorrow”

In response to the findings of UK Giving 2008 that cash donations have fallen, some have asked whether small charities will suffer.

The answer is no. The gradual shift from ‘spontaneous’ cash giving to regular, planned giving reflects changes in the broader economy. As more purchases are carried out using credit or debit cards and over the web, donations are inevitably following. Like small retailers, small charities will adapt.

It’s not just large charities that can use the new cashless payment methods. Web-based payment systems such as Paypal ‘level the playing field’ due to their simplicity and low transaction costs. Micro payments will widen the donor community, an opportunity for charities with even the simplest web sites. Other cashless payment systems might increase levels of giving – imagine a future where the swipe of an Oyster card enables Londoners to donate. Megan explored these issues in ICT Foresight: charitable giving and fundraising in a digital world (free to download)

Finally, this isn’t a zero sum game. The transition from cash giving has corresponded with an increase in total giving. In a world where we use the web increasingly to manage our relationships, the question is not whether small charities will suffer, but will they take the opportunities to help them prosper.

We are gathering together analysis, views and evidence on the impact of a recession on the sector. You can find all the sources we’ve identified here, on our delicious site (delicious is a ‘social bookmarking’ tool which allows you to collect and share web links)

I recently posted these top five things VCOs can do in a downturn on this epolitix.com forum where MPs and representatives from the VCS and private sector were giving their views on the current economic crisis:

“It is more important than ever during these tough times for organisations to plan ahead. It is vital to look carefully at your objectives and funding streams and ensure that you have the strategies in place to deal with any likely changes.

1. Plan for the downturn now. Look at your funding streams, beneficiaries and costs and plan likely scenarios for your organisation. Be realistic and don’t wait until it’s too late. Can you be more efficient in the way you do things? Can you save money by outsourcing some of your office functions?

2. Revisit your costs. Use this opportunity to renegotiate contracts with your suppliers (who will need your business more), or see if you can save money by switching to NCVO’s recommended suppliers

3. Develop your volunteers. Are you making the best use of their skills? Do you have a strategy to attract the volunteers you need, especially the pool of highly-skilled newly unemployed.

4. Build your network. With the sector facing the squeeze, collaboration can enable you to achieve more and accomplish your aims, despite having fewer resources.

5. Demonstrate your success. Measuring outcomes and demonstrating impact is notoriously hard to do. However, it is a great way to improve your chances of securing funding."

There have been a couple of replies to the NYT article here.

They both seem to be critical of the original article, standing up for the role of philanthropy, and in one case berating the performance of government. But I thought the original article was a bit more nuanced than that. Anyone got a view?

This driver raises some fundamental questions about the future of the sector in the mixed economy of welfare, to use the academic language. The arguments are well-rehearsed: should VCOs deliver more statutorily funded services (but in essence only really provide a sticking plaster) on the basis that it helps them to deliver their mission, or should they focus on campaigning to head off the root problems of social ills?
Presenting the future of the sector in such a binary format is of course splendid for debate but of little use for strategy. I don’t have time to properly research my arguments either, although my colleague Ann Blackmore has written eloquently on the issue of service delivery and independence a number of times. But for now, I’ll ask you to cross the pond and read an article forwarded to me by Professor Mark Rosenman of the Union Institute (who, incidentally, is well worth googling to read his numerous insightful articles). This op-ed piece from the New York Times compares the philanthropic efforts of givers with the expenditure of the federal government and is well worth a read. Its short and well researched.
The article raises a number of issues that are not just about the future of public service delivery, but about the future of our sector and our common purpose of a civil, indeed a civilised, society. Is it right that individual philanthropy trumps democratically accountable collective welfare? Should the latter subsidise the former? And will philanthropy ultimately resource the sorts of services that are needed by those most excluded from society? In asking such questions it implies some potentially difficult truths about the role and limits of philanthropy and perhaps voluntary action. It might suggest these are two quite different things, though I wonder if we conflate them and, worryingly, don’t question them.
But back to public services. If service delivery is fundamentally bound up in the future of our sector then strategies to deliver services to the most difficult to reach surely cant depend upon philanthropy seems to be the gist of the NYT article. That worries me: the US is frequently held as a model of where we might head; it is also widely acknowledged as a country with a strong not for profit sector. Both Labour and the Tories are speaking at NCVO’s annual conference in February…and I will be listening closely to see what they have to say about the role of philanthropy, and indeed if they make a connection with the role of the sector as a deliverer of public (though not publicly funded?) services.

If it’s about wider funding, then the obvious things that spring to my mind (and I’ve mentioned a couple on the other credit crunch blog) are:

1. Loan finance: obvious really, but loan finance will dry up as institutions holding cash hoard it. Not a great time to be promoting market solutions and quasi-equity.
2. Foundations: likely to be hit by nervous equity markets. I’d be interested to know if anyone in the network knows whether foundations have been investing hedge funds, who from what I gather might be particularly exposed to the sorts of securities that are now perceived as risky.
3. Corporate-related foundations: we’ve seen a couple of examples now in the UK of foundations related to private sector bodies where funding arrangements have been changed as the parent has got into difficulty.
4. The sector becomes a more attractive employer to the professional classes: there may be real opportunities for the sector in terms of attracting career changers. I wonder if at times of financial distress people reassess what they want from a job and look to the sector? Again, anyone in the network remember this from last time around?

I’ll try and think of some more, but the most interesting question for me is at the macro, not the organisational scale: will the sector downturn in sync with the rest of the economy? Or is there something about our sector that is counter-cyclical given its focus on social and economic welfare?

The argument for the former might go something like yes, because the sector has become so intertwined with the other sectors and because of the social enterprise approach. The idea of a counter-cyclical sector might be based upon the idea that trustees make deliberate decisions to apply reserves when they are needed most – a sort of Keynesian boost. Sadly, I think reality is the former, but again I would be interested to hear the opinions of people who have been around a bit!

Sydney
I’ve blogged already on what I think the impact of the credit crunch is, so you might want to read that. But in response to your comments, I thought I would try and have a think! Perhaps the first thing is to be clear what we mean by the credit crunch – my lay understanding is basically an end to cheap money and liquidity. We could blog all day about the causes of the crunch, but lets accept its been here for about 4 months and shows no signs of going away, whatever the Central Banks decide to do in terms of loosening monetary policy.
The second point I would make is that I am a tad skeptical about the overall message in the article – there is a lot of media interest in the new philanthropy, but apart from a small number of names that are widely circulated is there substantive evidence that these resource inputs are making a big impact on either charitable giving or the voluntary sector economy (where government funding continues to be the main driver of change). So, here goes.
1. The return of philanthropy
A bit like the return of Superman to the big screen last year, this is not quite hitting the heights of latter days. I don’t see any big social challenges being addressed by UK philanthropists to match the abolition of slavery for example. So the potential impact of the credit crunch here might be to choke off a nascent return: you might presume that the resources required to enter big-stakes giving are made from stock-market flotation or exit and city bonuses. The crunch will mean less corporate merger/takeover etc, all of which limits the potential for both corporate and individual gain. An uncertain economy might mean individuals wanting to hold onto their money in case.
2. Growth in the UK economy
Well, every silver lining has a cloud, and the current cumulonimbus of choice is a fall in the value of commercial and residential property. The optimists have pointed to the excess of supply over demand, but Larry Eliott of the Guardian recently pointed out that this is not justified (private sector rents have not risen). The credit crunch is directly relevant here and has been widely written about: in short, lots of fixed rate mortgages coming to the end of their terms will put house owners and buy-to-let magnates on the variable rate, which is now higher. Banks will also tighten their lending criteria – so no more self-certification, interest only, 110% mortgages, etc. In the UK there is a real psychological connection between house prices and self-perception of wealth. If the housing market tanks I will be really worried about charitable giving – though you might argue that is not the same as philanthropy.
3. Accumulation of private wealth
The tax system has certainly created a cohort of super-rich who might be prime targets for fundraisers. The original article highlights their international footloose nature: so if the credit crunch hits the UK more badly than other countries, then maybe the non-doms will identify new pastures.
4. Growth of private philanthropy: mega gifts
I’m slightly more cautious about these stats as they are donor lifetime amounts. I wonder if they are based on current value of the donor – so if you follow arguments made already, these might get scaled back if the donor fails to liquidate assets. This is where the Northern Rock problem might fit: a post-mutual PLC makes a welcome philanthropic donation comprising capital and revenue elements, which makes regular, much needed injections into the voluntary sector economy. But the credit crunch has wiped out much of the capital value, meaning the mega gift is now worth much less.
5. Rise of the ‘committed giver’
Again, some of these statistics need careful interpretation. I agree the sector is more reliant upon committed givers than in the past, but it will be interesting to see just how much this cohort grows. If the typical committed giver is on a salary of £50k/year, I might even venture to suggest that these are the middle classes that have benefited from the housing boom who have most to worry about from a crunch.
6. Emergence of philanthropy ‘think tanks’
7. Professionalism of the fundraising sector
8. Emergence of capital campaigns
Not sure there are issues for these points. Capital campaigns have been around for a long time; they are not really new.
9. Tax incentives to encourage private philanthropy
Yes, there are tax incentives to encourage giving, and the Labour government has moved this agenda on significantly with the abolition of lower limits on gift aid. But my sense is that fiscal policy is moving towards lower, flatter taxation: which might remove the sort of wrinkles in the tax code that give people and incentive to donate. The repeal of the estate tax in the US is indicative of where next for the UK. Not sure about impact of the credit crunch here: will more tax losses mean less incentive to use charitable giving to avoid payment of tax?
10. Government incentives to leverage private philanthropy
Without doubt important. But I wonder if the single best thing the government can do to encourage giving relates to broader fiscal (and monetary) policy: create the conditions for wealth accumulation and stand back. In which case the credit crunch is obviously bad news.

Geoff Mulgan’s point about focussing on institutional structures and forms has been echoed elsewhere in academic debates about ‘ownership’ – ie which sector are you in? This has arguably led to what some believe to be futile debates about independence, arguing that we should instead recognize that interdependence is the dominant paradigm in the mixed economy of welfare.

You’ll all know the blurring of the boundaries argument: well, academics like Ralph Kramer argue that the sector is an artifical construct, and that the notion of a sector is only really useful for political lobbying purposes. Those who have been around a bit might know of a paper by Diana Leat and Perri 6, who argued that the notion of the voluntary sector was actually created in the 1980s by a couple of policy entrepreneurs.

So, where does this lead me (I say me as these are personal views, not those of my employer)? Well, it might suggest that we are still focusing far too much on forms and boundaries. Social enterprise springs to mind here, as do faith based organisations, and their treatment by public policy. It might also suggest that the independence debate in its current form is overdone, though I would still recognize that there are substantive practical issues around how you provide welfare services in the mixed economy. It has implications for a regulatory world that is neat and tidy: the future would seem to be about hybridity, about messy organizational forms that are difficult to allocate to a sector or typologies. And finally, it of course emphasizes governance above government. But I wonder how much our notions of governance are dependent upon the big state, which is the current paradigm? I think all these ideas need to be thought through in the context of a smaller state, as that would seem to be the way that the political pendulum is now swinging.

My personal opinion is that there is much more to do around thinking about ICT will change the sector. I find it quite disappointing that so much discussion tends to be around back-office support or, where it is about the wider environment, how we can use websites to get people to click to give.

The focus needs to broaden so that we think about how ICT is changing the institutions and communities around us: this then leads to a focus on what the sector can strategically plan for. The other part of my rant is that we are still hearing all the time that the cost of kit is a huge barrier. It’s not, or it is if you have a PC-centric view of the world.

I would love to see someone produce a vision of what their organisation would look like in 5 years time if it responded to some of the ways in which people are now using new technologies to communicate and collaborate!

Should umbrella bodies promote the notion of a sector? Or should they instead promote the issues and missions of their collective members that ultimately shape the need for voluntary and community organisations at the centre of a civil society?
Now seems a good time to pose the question about what the infrastructure of the future is for: what with CapacityBuilders taking the ChangeUp agenda to its next stage, and Carnegie UK’s report on the future of civil society highlighting the need for organisations not just to focus on your own patch. Its something we are thinking about here at NCVO, but what motivated me to blog about this was an article on the Stanford Social Innovation Review and in particular a provocative statement that says “It should be clear that talking about what nonprofits need is not the way to make nonprofits relevant to the general public”

There’s more challenging stuff, so have a look and, if you have a comment about the future direction of the UK infrastructure, I would be interested in a conversation in this forum. I’m certainly going to have a bit more of a think about it. Maybe I should have titled this blog Infrastructure Will Eat Itself…

Now, this might look a bit odd, but I’m replying to my own blog. Or rather I am replying on behalf of an old friend who can’t reply in person. Let’s say they are challenged by the technology.

Anyway, I digress. My friend points out that the survival of ‘unstrategic’ foundations isn’t actually that strange. He argues that foundations will survive even by doing nothing, because they don’t need to do ‘something’. The report does indeed say this too – my friend remarked “there is no pressure on them to change or to do anything, so in a sense to me their survival isn’t surprising – they will just continue, and ‘be’ until…well, until the revolution comes? And here, without even a 5% payout requirement that exists in the US, that probably applies even more?” Given the rather obvious fact that these foundations have been around since Adam was a lad, are they living proof that a strategy is a useful but ultimately unnecessary tool? Hmmm…

My friend goes on to argue that “most trustees of most (probably smaller) foundations don’t have any clear conceptual view, or any theory of social change, within which they are operating… They are simply trustees of a foundation that gives money away, and they try and do it honestly and as well as they can – that’s all. End of story. Of course there’s nothing wrong in that per se. But the US book is probably predicated upon a more philanthropic concept that there is a responsibility upon foundations to deal with causes and long term issues.”

In other words, strategy is the difference between just surviving and doing well. And in turn, strategy is about planning for the long-term, based upon a theory of change. This begs the question how much strategic planning (in foundations or otherwise) is based upon a theory of change?

I think it’s debateable whether or not this does have direct implications for the sector. Its certainly the case that foundations will be impacted: remember they are in effect savers who live off the dividends and interest from their investments. So, an increase in interest rates will (ceteris paribus) increase their income. Which means they have more money to give to the frontline organisations reading this blog.

Balanced against that is the obvious fact that more organisations are borrowing. Loan terms vary and of course the foresightful (again, those reading this blog I hope) will have borrowed at fixed rates. For others, higher interest payments mean less to spend on charitable purpose.

The sector is, overall, a net saver. So, increased interest rates should lead to a direct increase in the sector’s income. However, the donor in the street might have less disposable income if they are paying more out on the mortgage. In other words, increased interest rates should lead to an indirect decrease in the sector’s income. What the Bank of England giveth they taketh away…

By the way, if you want to construct your own trend chart to show changes in the base rate you can copy all the figures from the BofE’s stats page

Its another US publication, but the Center for Effective Philanthropy recently published a report on how foundations view and design strategy. OK, its about foundations, but put that aside. Its relevant to all of us.

It defines strategy as "a framework for decision making that is 1)focused on the external context in which the foundation works and 2)includes a hypothesised causal connection between use of foundation resources and goal achievement.

OK, nothing surprising, but what it does do, which is interesting, is highlight the continuing survival of organisations in what you might argue to be a strategic position in the sector that effectively act in a non-strategic way. I quote: “the majority of frameworks they describe do not meet our basic definition of a strategy”. They also talk about a “fundamental disconnect” between belief in and actual daily use of strategy. The report can be found here

Wow. Strong stuff. Now, a funny thing for me is that I have always imagined that our north american coleagues are way ahead of us on the issue of strategy and strategic planning.

So where does that leave us in the UK? How much as we walking the talk?

Its another US publication, but the Center for Effective Philanthropy recently published a report on how foundations view and design strategy. OK, its about foundations, but put that aside. Its relevant to all of us.

It defines strategy as "a framework for decision making that is 1)focused on the external context in which the foundation works and 2)includes a hypothesised causal connection between use of foundation resources and goal achievement.

OK, nothing surprising, but what it does do, which is interesting, is highlight the continuing survival of organisations in what you might argue to be a strategic position in the sector that effectively act in a non-strategic way. I quote: “the majority of frameworks they describe do not meet our basic definition of a strategy”. They also talk about a “fundamental disconnect” between belief in and actual daily use of strategy. The report can be found here

Wow. Strong stuff. Now, a funny thing for me is that I have always imagined that our north american colleagues are way ahead of us on the issue of strategy and strategic planning.

So where does that leave us in the UK? How much as we walking the talk?

There is an interesting quote on Wikipedia’s internet entry from an american writer called N J Slibbert of the Urban Land Institute. He states that “the Internet is fast becoming a basic feature of global civilization, so that what has traditionally been called civil society is now becoming identical with information technology society as defined by Internet use.”

Interesting comment, especially given other drivers on here regarding the digital divide and the critique of Robert Putnam (which I think he has subsequently addressed) that theories about the decline of social capital failed to take account of digital communities.

The quote is orginally attributed to: Slabbert,N.J. The Technologies of Peace, Harvard International Review, June 2006 and can be found here This is actually an article about the US peace corps and its role in international security (!), and the idea that technology is civil society is not expanded.But its an interesting idea that needs exploring.

I agree this is a problem, but is the access issue reaching a tipping point? The Internet World Stats website reports that 62% of the population in the UK now has web access. I think that Ofcom estimates are even higher. Worldwide, an estimated 1.2 billion people have web access.

One of the problems about the debate on internet access is that it is a very PC-centric model. I can’t pin down the research – I think it’s by Gartner – but in essence they argue that shortly more mobile phones will be connected to the interne than PCs. My guess is that the mobile phone is perhaps the most democratic, classless piece of technology in use today, whether in the UK or worldwide. So maybe the Smartphone will signal the end of the digital divide.

A second problem is that it is assumed to be a supply-side issue (i.e. supply is too limited/too expensive). But technology adoption is also a demand side issue. I wonder if some people just don’t see the relevance, or the PC/internet doesn’t fit with their lifestyle? So, for a number of years Sky’s dustbin lid was probably not bolted to many homes in Islington as it was a piece of technology with class connotations. The PS3, Xbox etc are similar bits of technology with a particular demographic. Perhaps the final point to note here is that all these devices (and your fridge too, if you fancy it) will all connect to the internet.

I wonder if the answer to this question lays not so much in the implications of a bigger rental market per se, but the implications of some parts of the rental market getting larger. In particular, the private sector is gaining a foothold in the provision of social (i.e. rented) housing as government (specifically the Housing Corporation) creates a mixed economy of providers including the private sector. David Mullins (well worth googling if you are interested in housing and futures) and Bruce Walker argued last year that the hoped for improvements in efficiency from this move might drive up innovation and drive down price.

The implications for the third sector therefore of a larger rental market with more players are pressure on price (whatever the ‘full cost’) and the need to respond to more efficient practices. See Mullins and Walker’s presentation here

More broadly, I wonder if some implications are a greater distinction between the haves and have nots in society, with the haves being the house owning majority? And I wonder what the implications are for engagement and social capital? It might be interesting to look at (for example) census data and see what correlates with rented accommodation housing status.