Reflections on our Knowledge Exchange Forum: Inverness

Thursday 5th May might have been a significant date in the calendar for Scottish politics, but more importantly it was also the date of our Knowledge Exchange Forum in Inverness. The event invited an audience of social enterprise practitioners, academic researchers and associated organisations to share their thoughts and ideas of social enterprise and its links to health and wellbeing.

The forum included fantastic presentations from 3 local social enterprises; Calman Trust, Highland Blindcraft and Eden Court; alongside presentations from NHS Highland and the Highland Council. The event also allowed us the opportunity to discuss in groups what we mean by health and wellbeing, how our work might affect the lives of others, and how this might be measureable, leading to some thought provoking insights! As there were so many interesting points raised we have asked our CommonHealth team to highlight just a few……

A massive thank you to everyone who attended and shared their views, and a special mention to the Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE) for their support and input!

image

Working as a social enterprise

The presentations from Calman Trust, Eden Court, and Highland Blindcraft reflected the diverse ways in which social enterprise has become both a structure -around which you can build an organisation- and a tool -which third sector organisations can make use of to fulfil their social missions. For example Calman Trust operates the social enterprise Ness Soap and Cafe Artysans; Eden Court is a publically funded arts organisation that uses elements of social enterprise in its practice; Highland Blindcraft has existed in one form or another for 140 years. Currently it operates as a charity limited by guarantee and has been variously labelled a social enterprise, and a supportive business.

People and organisations who want to create social change and generate social value don’t worry too much about what they’re called. For many organisations, if ‘social enterprise’ is a title which might bring in funding to help their users, then they’ll happily slap ‘social enterprise’ stickers on everything. But equally, if the funding flavour of the month is ‘social business’ or ‘charity’, then that’s the name they’ll use. Participants’ commitment to their social purpose was prioritised over the label used to describe their work.

This raises questions for academics like us at Commonhealth, and suggests that we should perhaps think of social enterprise as a set of processes that organisations use, rather than a group of organisations that share common characteristics. In turn this leads to further questions for policy makers and the support that should be in place for social enterprise.

For those of you interested in this discussion you may be interested in Simon Teasdale’s upcoming professional lecture: What’s in a name?

Addressing vulnerability and providing support

Several of the discussions throughout the day picked up on concerns that practitioners were witnessing increased levels of vulnerability, especially in connection to young people and youth unemployment. In this context the imperative to balance the ‘business’ elements of a social enterprise with its social purpose, becomes an ever more delicate balancing act; and for some this was likely to become a central challenge for the sector in coming years. Social enterprises therefore felt that while they could not hope to solve all the problems they faced, they could help to make young people more resilient and able to cope with the challenges they faced in the future.

When discussing support and vulnerability, often what can be neglected are the effects that social enterprise activity might have on its founders, board members and managers. When individuals volunteer their time and energy into creating and building their social enterprise we can forget to consider the impact that this might have on their personal and family life, and the sacrifices that they have to make. This can be in terms of personal finance, lack of time spent with loved ones and having to work long and anti-social hours to make things work. Yet support for such groups can be scarce.

DSC_0384

 

Amazing illustrations by Sarah Ahmad

From pathways to evidence

Social enterprises frequently need to prove (or attempt to) the outcomes of their work. Practitioners from the numerous organisations in attendance could relate to us the pathways that individuals had taken through their organisations, but often felt that these stories alone were not taken seriously as evidence of their impact on health and wellbeing.

Often the most small and subtle changes were felt to be the most powerful. In environments where social enterprise practitioners are working every day, the most satisfying aspects might be simply putting a smile on a young person’s face. Yet, not only is it difficult to measure the value of a smile, it may not be what funders are interested in anyway. There are ways of measuring impact (e.g. SROI or Social Audit) which may give a snapshot of the social value of a social enterprise. However, such measurement can be tough when funders want hard numbers not stories, or can’t think about long-term outcomes beyond the funding period.

Moreover, what was commonly found was that measures do not always account for major differences in social enterprise type and scale. For example, a community centre might benefit 1,500 community members, yet a childcare service might only benefit 5; and each activity impacts to a variety of different levels. Therefore, how can measures be truly representative of how people are individually affected?

Taking all of these insights into consideration we have a lot to keep us busy until the next event! 

Gillian Murray, Bobby Macaulay, Danielle Kelly, Clementine Hill-O’Connor, Fiona Henderson, Steve Rolfe

Advertisements

Knowledge Exchange Forum: Social Health Farago!

 

On Monday the CommonHealth team relocated to Dundee for our latest Knowledge Exchange Forum. An invited audience of 40 people associated in different ways with social enterprises in Scotland listened as 6 social enterprises briefly described their work. The attendees then split into several smaller groups and discussed the links between social enterprise and health, leading to some interesting debates and so many insights we could not fit them all into one blog! So here’s a summary of what we learned about health and social enterprise from listening, with more to follow next week on social enterprise structure and support…

Thank you to everyone who attended and shared their views!

Blog photo

There are countless ways in which social enterprises can impact on health

The groups suggested that social enterprise can have an impact on different levels of wellbeing, including safety and security, love and belonging, self-esteem, and self-actualization, for one group these impacts being most akin to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Other specific examples of social enterprises’ impact on health discussed by the groups presented us with some interesting avenues for future research. For example, arts based social enterprises were recognised within the groups for the ways in which they can decrease an individual’s stress. One group attributed this to the concentration required to engage creatively and suggested this captures the essence of mindfulness, i.e. thinking only in the present, specifically and immersively about the task in hand. Arts-based social enterprises can also be used as an outlet for emotion through various creative and visual mediums.

In other examples, some groups agreed formal employment is an important vehicle to not only improving health but also to prevent reductions in wellbeing, especially when there is payment of the living wage and sustainable security of employment is assured. Dundee has had a tumultuous job market in recent history when the famed prosperity of its ‘jam, Jute and journalism’ era came to an end, and groups touched on this and the region’s work to create a brighter economic future. For those excluded or distanced from the job market at the moment, volunteering was seen as potentially beneficial assuming it didn’t lead to burn-out or a loss of benefits. (We will be discussing this theme further in some of our up-coming blogs!)

Relationships are important when dealing with those with complex support needs

A recurring point of discussion in the KEF was the creation of social enterprises to address the limited care and support individuals received from institutions, particularly the local authority and the NHS. One of the tables expressed a desire for health and social services to be able to provide longer-term care and to develop relationships with people so that they could work through their complex needs. This was expressed in different ways amongst most groups, and by those working in local authorities, social enterprises and voluntary organisations. Practitioners on the ground know that good health doesn’t begin and end with addressing individual conditions, and are often frustrated when the work they begin with people gets cut short because they fall outside a particular scheme or funding stream. For some practitioners this frustration had become so acute that they had started their own initiatives in order to better address the needs of the individuals, families and the communities they work with. Making good use of this expertise and energy is a central challenge for health and social care in future.

Dundee and Tayside brought us marmalade, Desperate Dan and an exceptionally high level of female employment in the Jute industry before women won the right to vote. The KEF showed us that the region’s communities still continue to innovate and evolve.

Next week we will be continuing the discussion with another overview of what we learned, looking specifically at the strength and flexibility of social enterprise and how they can be best supported.

Bobby Macaulay, Clementine Hill O’Connor, Danielle Kelly, Fiona Henderson, Gill Murray

Is social enterprise a threat to community development?

image

This was a question thrown at us when Alan Kay (a partner on the CommonHealth project) and I presented at the Community Development Journal conference in Edinburgh a couple of weeks ago.

The conference was an exciting mix of the old guard- seminal community development practitioners and academics, and those newer to the field (including myself). There was also really good attendance from people from overseas organisations and universities to offer international experiences and perspectives.

The Community Development Journal (CDJ) arranged the conference to celebrate its 50th anniversary and the first plenary session sought to reflect on this history. I was interested to hear that it was borne out of the development workers returning from the newly independent colonies who wanted a space to reflect on their practice and how it might be relevant to the UK context.

Other plenary sessions made reference to the Community Development Projects of the 1960s which were state owned and state controlled. Despite this, many of the community development practitioners involved were able to subvert the projects and rather than align the outcomes to the government principles at the time delivered a structural analysis of the lives of those living in deprived community. Eventually the project was pulled and yet, as pointed out by one of the conference attendees, this analysis is as relevant now as it was in the 1960s.

Reflecting on more recent times some speakers talked about the aims of the journal in its current form. CDJ  ‘adopts a broad definition of community development to include policy, planning and action as they impact on the life of communities. It seeks to publish critically focused articles which challenge received wisdom, report and discuss innovative practices, and relate issues of community development to questions of social justice, diversity and environmental sustainability.’

I have gone slightly off topic, but this potted history is merely to illustrate the established and varied nature of the audience Alan and I had to contend with. We were aware that there would be some scepticism regarding the value of social enterprise and how comfortably (or not) it would work alongside community development practices.

Despite our concerns, and the inevitable scepticism, it was a well-received session with a number of interesting debates and discussion (none of which were fully resolved!) and gave us lots to reflect upon as the CommonHealth project proceeds.

  • There is potential for social enterprise to address social isolation, a core part of health and wellbeing. It can also encourage community participation but it depends on the structure of the organisation. It is important for people to be considered as more than a service user and instead be actively engaged as members. However, this is also what good community development can do, so what is unique about social enterprise’s contribution to improved health and wellbeing?
  • Some have assumed that social enterprise can be a positive step towards moving away from grant dependency, while this can be the case it could result in market dependency which can be just as problematic.
  • There was some concern with the potential for social enterprise to represent collusion with the agenda of neo-liberal austerity as services are withdrawn and budgets reduced. Social enterprise could be seen to be justifying or managing this process.
  • Critical thinking is required whenever it comes to considering new practices and interventions, thereby making it increasingly important to consider and question the power relations within communities and organizations

Of course we haven’t managed to answer the question of whether or not social enterprise is a threat to community development, but it was very useful to explore these issues with academics and practitioners in this field. What was clear was that just as we have benefited from the collaboration of social enterprise practitioners through the Knowledge Exchange Forums we also benefited from collaboration with this diverse group of academics and practitioners from the field of community development. In answering some of these difficult questions it seems that collaboration of all types is the way forward.