Participle

Commissioned by Cisco, Charles Leadbeater interviewed 100 social entrepreneurs seeking to meet huge needs without the advantage of traditional resources. What we can learn from social entrepreneurs are innovating radically new ways to take learning into the poorest places in to the world.

That kind of disruptive innovation may not come from the best schools. It is much more likely to come from social entrepreneurs who often seek to meet huge need without the resources for traditional solutions: teachers, text books and schools. Disruptive innovation frequently starts in the margins rather than the mainstream. Governments should continue to look to the very best school systems to guide improvement strategies. But increasingly they should also look to social entrepreneurs working at the extremes who may well create the low-cost, mass, participatory models of learning that will be needed in future.

To find out more download the Learning from the Extremes White Paper here

In 2008, we piloted a wonderful service we call Get-Together. It's aim is to reduce some truly horrific statistics. Currently, in the UK, 3.1 million people over 65 do not see a friend, neighbour or family member, at least once a week and 1.8 million have no contact with friends, family or neighbours at least once a month. The link between social isolation and mental health is very strong, highlighted well in Daniel Goleman's book, Social Intelligence: The New Science of Human Relationships - “Studies done over two decades involving more than thirty-seven thousand people show that social isolation - the sense that you have nobody with whom you can share your private feelings or have close contact - doubles the chance of sickness or death. Isolation itself, a 1987 report in Science concluded, "is as significant to mortality rates as smoking, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, obesity and lack of physical exercise." Indeed, smoking increases mortality risk by a factor of just 1.6, while social isolation does so by a factor of 2.0, making it a greater health risk."

So, Participle, in conjunction with Westminster Council, developed this service called Get Together. For the past year, we have been developing a business case, and getting partners on board to finance and launch Get-Together across London. This is planned for 2010, so watch this space. In the meantime, watch this great film made of the pilot:



For more information on Get-Together, view the case study. Also, read this article here written by Jonathan Freedland.

LONDON — Let’s look back at what design was like a decade ago. If I’d mentioned the “S word” you’d have thought it meant “style,” not “sustainability.”

See the full article here

Seven ways to protect public services
There are alternatives to Ryanair-style public services cut back to a basic low-cost offering, says Charles Leadbeater.

See the full article here

Not only is "influential" difficult to measure, but "design" is also nigh on impossible to define neatly... From design thinkers to hands-on design doers in industries from graphics to industrial to auto design, our chosen 27 luminaries represent a diverse cross-section of design disciplines. But all those selected have one thing in common: They are in some way responsible for shaping the world around us. Business Week names Hilary Cottam as one of the World's Most Influential Designers .

This week David Cameron gave his big ‘poverty’ speech. The press are still chewing it over and profoundly disagreeing about its implications. A ‘meaty’ speech, was the verdict of Ben Brogan in the Telegraph. ‘Incoherent’ and ‘utterly duplicitous’, claimed Madeleine Bunting on the left.

From Participle’s perspective, David Cameron’s speech is welcome. Firstly because he has brought centre stage the big social challenges we are focused on. Secondly because he has put his finger on a number of issues that are so evident to the families and communities we work with. Current models of both service delivery and welfare reform are failing to connect to people’s lives in ways that foster and support deep and meaningful change.

That said, there seem to me to be two central flaws in his argument. They matter because the way we frame the problem is likely to determine the solutions proposed.

Cameron writes about the suffocating state, but he is absolutely silent on the rapacious market, to which the New Labour state has been so subservient and so closely connected. It is too simplistic to say that human kindness has been squeezed out by the state. Certainly target driven public services have squeezed out the space and time for human relationships. Their relentless, palliative focus has also forced people to categorise themselves as needy in order to receive support, which can squeeze out resilience and responsibility.

Cameron is also right that feverish social engineering commanded by Westminster will not bring about change, but neither will ‘nudging’ in the context of entrenched poverty and increasing inequality. Ultimately all our current service targets are economic – they support an overarching market objective of economic growth. Human factors – the non-measurable elements of trust, time, friendship, human relationships are squeezed out within this market driven framework, no matter who is responsible for delivery – the state or the private sector.

This brings me to the second problem with Cameron’s thesis – his views on inequality.

Inequality is at the heart of the matter. Cameron approvingly quotes Wilkinson, author of the Spirit Level whose work shows that the more unequal a society, the worse every quality of life indicator. Bizarrely in his speech, Cameron then goes on to discuss how it is about redistribution between the middle and the bottom. But, as Wilkinson himself has commented, in reaction to the speech; ‘Bringing down the top incomes is very important.’ Wilkinson imagines income distribution in society as if we are all points on a piece of elastic, explaining that, if you pull out the top further, then everyone below gets spread further apart.

Longitudinal research shows there is a clear correlation between income inequality and social glue. Britain is one of the most unequal societies in the world. Unless we are willing to talk about and address this disparity, neither a re-imagined state nor an army of social entrepreneurs can build Cameron’s big society.

These are some of the structural issues that Participle seeks to address with our mission statement (Beveridge 4.0) and our work with families and communities across Britain. We have argued for a capabilities approach – a model that would invest in fostering a different value set including relationships. And in our practical work we are learning what it takes to bring this about – often with the most troubled families in the most isolated communities.

In this context we welcome Cameron’s support for social enterprises such as the ones we are growing, but we would like to push him on the framework in which these enterprises are currently expected to operate. We find in our work that the community energy Cameron seeks to foster is alive and well. Circle – our enterprise providing a new form of elder support in London cannot handle the numbers who want to work and volunteer for us. Loops – our new universal youth service has shown in an early pilot stage that businesses and communities are prepared to contribute to providing experiences and reflection sessions for all young people – they have just never been asked before.

To thrive and sustain themselves over time, these and other initiatives across Britain need a different framework in which to operate. Embedding change within communities takes time and cannot only be measured by economic indicators. It is all too easily strangled by expensive bureaucratic frameworks - protection policies for example, that actively work against transparent, caring human inter-action. We need a culture that welcomes a broader set of ideas about problem solving – not a centralised, one solution fits all approach that we have seen over the last 20 years.

It is difficult work and those who support change at the front line need to be properly paid and emotionally supported – not fobbed off with the trappings of ‘professionalisation’. This will not make it more expensive – quite the contrary Participle’s work shows that significant financial savings can be made but resources need to be distributed right to the community level and again we need frameworks that facilitate this.

Ultimately however all these ideas, the efforts of Participle and our activist siblings can only act as sticking plaster in a nation of increasing inequality. Let’s hope that Cameron really is listening to Richard Wilkinson and his colleagues

The government's new public services reforms focus on rights and entitlements, but, argues Charles Leadbeater in the Guardian, supportive relationships are key to tackling social ills

See the full article here

Whilst William Beveridge's pioneering 1948 report on welfare reform asked for "room, opportunity and encouragement for voluntary action in seeking new ways of social advance," current welfare systems manage a 'one way' relationship between the state and individuals in need. Today's Times article mentions Participle's involvement in community based initiatives to 'help people help themselves,' a motto of current Participle project Southwark Circle. Communities do not need to be reduced to simply 'people with needs,' rather that there are individuals who also have skills and knowledge to share. By expanding social networks to facilitate these skills into the community, the state need not expensively intervene, and we can indeed 'help people help themselves.'

See Camilla's full editorial

In 2008, Participle worked with a diverse group of over 200 older people and their families in Westminster and Southwark. We spent time in their homes, going shopping with them, helping with the odd job and introducing them to one another, gaining insight into how individuals and families see themselves, their aspirations, their dreams.

The aim of our work was to ensure a rich third age, one that every citizen, regardless of income level or assets might live: a life less ordinary. Specifically, in Southwark our goal was the design of a new universal service that might be replicated nationally - supporting older people to live in a way of their choosing as they age. In Westminster our work has been more closely focused, we have worked only with those who define themselves as lonely, the majority of whom are over 80 and housebound with the goal of facilitating rich social lives.

This article briefly tells the story of this work, the affordable solutions we have designed and the nascent lessons for how we might re-think a welfare state, its relationship to individuals and most importantly of all to wider social bonds.

To read the article click here