Social work and the business of philanthropy
Thursday, June 26th, 2008
Charitable giving and receiving is big business, millions of pounds are spent on social work services – how do we know whether we are providing and receiving value for money? How can social work evidence the difference made in terms of the quality of people’s lives and the costs to society of not supporting vulnerable people in crisis?
You may have noticed that there are a number of “new kids on the block” shaking up the care sector. With an increasing emphasis upon services being delivered by the third sector there has been real growth in the number of social enterprises providing services. Social enterprises are profit-making businesses set up to tackle a social or environmental need. Rather than maximising shareholder value their main aim is to generate profit to further their social and environmental goals. Well known examples of social enterprises include Jamie Oliver’s restaurant Fifteen, The Big Issue, the Eden Project, the Co-op Bank and fair-trade coffee company Cafedirect.
Recent government data suggests that there are more than 55,000 social enterprises in the UK with a combined turnover of £27bn. Social enterprises account for 5% of all businesses with employees, and contribute £8.4billion per year to the UK economy. The social enterprise movement is inclusive and extremely diverse, encompassing organisations such as development trusts, community enterprises, co-operatives, housing associations, ‘social firms’ and leisure trusts, among others. These businesses are operating across an incredibly wide range of industries and sectors from health and social care, to renewable energy, recycling and fair trade.
Social enterprise is a business model which offers the prospect of a greater equity of economic power and a more sustainable society – by combining market efficiency with social and environmental justice. Do social enterprises offer a future model for the delivery of social work services? Find out more by visiting http://www.socialenterprise.org.uk
You may have noticed the term “philanthropy capital” has now entered the lexicon of care terminology and ask what this has to do with social work? In the ever changing social care landscape the influence of these new players should not be underestimated. A major player is New Philanthropy Capital (NPC) which was established by former executives of Goldman Sachs to analyze the effectiveness of charitable giving for wealthy donors.
Their influence and impact could have a wider social benefit since arguably most people have an interest in ensuring that social care resources are used wisely and effectively to ensure the maximum return (however that is measured).
However, there are some fundamental and important questions about the funding of social care which do need to be addressed urgently. Finite resources, increased demands and expectations are coupled with a blurring of the boundaries between what should be provided as a matter of right and entitlement funded by the state and what is the role of the third sector. Is it right that we should be relying upon philanthropic capitalism to fund the gaps in core services?
A recent report by NPC highlighted the fact that the public give more in donations to a Devon-based donkey sanctuary than to the major charities campaigning to prevent violence and abuse against women. The headline grabbing figures contrasted the £17 million combined income of Refuge, The Women’s Aid Federation and Eaves Housing for Women with the £20 million received by the Donkey Sanctuary in 2006.There is a wider issue about the large number of charities all seemingly covering the same ground. NPC is calling for government action to tackle violence against women and is urging donors to give their support.
The 200 largest charities providing services for abused women or campaigning to prevent abuse have a combined annual income of £97 million. Out of these who is the most worthy recipient of a donation? Is it right that charities have been forced to become so competitive? For example; can you identify the point of significant difference between the top five children’s charities? And when a major charity claims to be stamping out child abuse what role does this suggest for social workers in local authorities?
Maybe the public assume that the government fund the services dealing with domestic abuse, sexual violence, forced marriage, trafficking and honour crimes, which the NPC estimates cost society £40 billion a year. That is a very high cost which will have a significant legacy which inevitably impacts upon social services.
The importance of making services, however they are delivered, open, transparent, accountable is a major challenge for us all. Strangely enough no one individual, organization or government department has all the answers and the wisdom and knowledge contained in the social work profession should certainly be making a louder contribution to the debate.
NPC publish a number of useful tools including “measuring your results” which can be downloaded from www.philanthropycapital.org
A new class of corporate philanthropists would have us believe charity is post-political. Far from it Source Tristram Hunt The Guardian, Thursday April 17 2008
Ask any New York head-hunter and they will tell you the talent has moved uptown. At the other end of Manhattan, far removed from the investment banks of Wall Street or the media conglomerates of mid-town, the bright young things are heading straight to Harlem to get a foot in the door at the Clinton Global Initiative.
Alongside the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation or Google.org, CGI stands at the forefront of the latest trend in wealthy giving: philanthrocapitalism. A fashionable form of high-value charity that has now crossed the Atlantic and started to catch on among London’s more socially minded plutocrats. Indeed, with the appointment of the multimillionaire philanthropist Jennifer Moses as special adviser to the prime minister, the approach has made its way into the highest reaches of government. Yet, as a timely pamphlet by philanthropy guru Michael Edwards warns, the grandiose claims of philanthrocapitalism can both overplay its results and mask its more nefarious effects.
Loading ...
