Report from Phase OneThe 'Burning Issues'

October 2017

The Sheila McKechnie FoundationA company limited by guarantee,

Registered in England and Wales No. 5331412A registered charity No. 1108210

Registered office: 17 Oval Way, London, SE11 5RR

Contents

Part One: Background and Methods..................................................................3

What is The Social Change Project?...............................................................3

Working Approach....................................................................................................3

What do we mean by 'social change’?...............................................................3

Our three areas of interest/objectives...............................................................3

Our approach - Phases one, two and three - and impact............................3

People - who is involved?.....................................................................................3

Design principles.......................................................................................................4

Phase One –who, what, where?.............................................................................4

Our Community of Practise........................................................................................4

A note on language......................................................................................................5Part Two: Social Change Understandings and Common Features. . .7

What do people understand by the term ‘social change’?.............................7

Context..............................................................................................................................7

When positive change does happen, what are the common features?............................................................................................................................ 9

Clear moral purpose.....................................................................................................9

Ethics................................................................................................................................. 9

Knowing how change works and having the right models, structures and resources........................................................................................................................10

Flexible model/Strategy............................................................................................10

Social change is about people................................................................................11

Collaboration.................................................................................................................13

Tools, tactics, timing - the day-to-day work of change..................................13

What stops change from happening?..............................................................14

Organisations................................................................................................................15

Funders........................................................................................................................... 16

Individuals......................................................................................................................16

Part Three: Phase Two Propositions/Provocations..................................17

Page 2 of 20

Part One: Background and Methods

What is The Social Change Project?

The Social Change Project is a fifteen-month initiative set up to strengthen civil society’s ability to effect positive social change.

Working Approach

What do we mean by 'social change’?

We are interested in activities within civil society which bring about change, both long and short term, legal, political and behaviour change, at the local, national and international. We are interested in change brought about by charities, community groups, social enterprises, individuals and other interesting collaborators. We see that change comes from a multitude of spaces, spurred on by different actors. We are interested in it all. 

Our three areas of interest/objectives

a. Understanding what enables and impedes social change and identifying ‘burning questions’

b. Recommending responses to help practitioners to enhance their effectiveness and to know when they are being effective;

c. Thought leadership and strategic advocacy towards strengthening the conditions in which positive social change can thrive.

Our approach - Phases one, two and three - and impact

Phase 1 (July and Aug) – building the evidence base, finding out “what works” and identifying the burning issues Phase 2 (Sept to Dec) – bring together the community to pool inspirations and insights, tackle the burning issues and agree key ways forwardPhase 3 (Feb 18 to May 18) – test, refine and promote the ways forward via our community to the wider civil society and beyond

People - who is involved?

SMK is primarily the thought convenor and catalyst for encouraging anyone with an interest and commitment to civil society and social

Page 3 of 20

change to engage with the project. So far we have engaged a diverse community of

practise in the project including large and small charities, individual campaigners, community groups and initiatives, academics and funders. Further details of who is involved can be found in the participation report.

Design principles

We are designing The Social Change Project with the following principles in mind:

We are co-investigators, not audiences: we are all in this together, as co-investigators, inquiring into and exploring what we understand by ‘social change’ and how to create the conditions for it to flourish, with authority and integrity.

We believe less in answers than in the power of shared understanding in how to respond to the material of complexity as we experience it.

‘Community of practise’ is our objective: we hope to create the conditions for a sustainable community of practise that will gather around shared concern to better understand social change.

Grounded in the actual context of use/experience: the content of our inquiry is our shared and diverse experience of trying to do good work in the context in which we work.

We recognise that these is change happening at all levels of society and social change will mean something different in each context.

Phase One – who, what, where?

Our Community of Practise

We have very purposely reached out right across civil society in creating our community of practise. Taking part in conversations were people in campaigning roles in charities; local service delivery organisations; community development and organising; informal networks and voluntary initiatives; social enterprise and academia. We also had representatives from our funders in a workshops and in another someone from the public sector.

Page 4 of 20

It is highly unusual for a project to bring together this breadth of people drawn from right across civil society. It is undoubtedly a real strength of this project and has created a rich and enlightening conversation. Not least, it

allowed us to look above the preoccupations of each discrete constituency to consider what are common interests, concerns and opportunities. For example, much of the literature in the campaigning world at the moment is focused on mobilisation and movement building. Coming together as a wider community helped us see that this is only piece of the whole social change jigsaw, and rarely delivers change in isolation. Our task what to look across the diversity of work being undertaken to ask what is common to all endeavours. What centrally is the work of social change about, and what are the models and approaches that successful instances of social change hold in common? (We set out our current thinking at the end of this document.)

However, the diversity of our community has brought challenges too. There are experiences specific to particular groups that others are completely unaware of and found it hard to discuss (those outside of registered charities were completely unaware of many of the tensions introduced by the Lobbying Act and anti-advocacy clauses, for example); those working on their own or in small organisations are not confronted by any of the challenges of being in large organisations and vice versa; and language can be difficult. We had to start each workshop by sharing language and discussing terminology to ensure everyone in the group felt clear and comfortable about the material we wanted to discuss.

A note on language...

It is clear that language is a significant problem. There isn't a lexicon that is shared across civil society - and in some cases, it seems that there isn't any language that people feel fits what they are doing and that they are comfortable using.

The word 'campaigning', notably, divided our participants. For professionals working in campaign and policy teams, this is language that they use and value. They feel strongly that campaigning has been under attack from various Government measures, and that the sector has lost confidence in campaigning and they'd like to see the term defended and rehabilitated.

For others it brought different connotations. Interestingly, many people didn't like the term 'campaign' because they thought it conferred a necessarily oppositional approach. A woman who has reluctantly come to describe herself as a 'community activist' said all the available language was too much about fighting and resistance and she doesn't see her work

Page 5 of 20

as about this. She is more sophisticated in how she pursues change. For others, the term 'campaigning' was about challenging decisions made somewhere else. It didn't speak to more nuanced power relationships, and processes of negotiation.

'Advocacy' was broadly seen as something narrower - representing the views and interests of particular groups. 'Activism' as about public demonstration and protest. When asked what language people do use to describe themselves and their work - most struggled to answer and in the end talked about the purpose of their work. The term ‘social change’ has proved very useful in allowing this constituency to come together and explore what they hold in common – so absolutely the right ‘frame’ for the project.

It does feel like finding new ways to frame and talk about the work of social change could be an incredibly valuable output from this project, helping cohere this new community of practise; unlocking investment from funders who also feel uneasy with the term 'campaigning' and taking some of the toxicity out of policy narratives that have called into question the legitimacy and value of civil society having a voice, having agency and playing a full part in shaping their own lives, their communities and wider society.

Page 6 of 20

Part Two: Social Change Understandings and Common Features

What do people understand by the term ‘social change’?

The term social change is broad and has been helpful in allowing this project to engage with a wide community of people. At each workshop we asked people to tell us what the term social change meant to them in no more than three words. Using their words we crafted this understanding:

Progressive social change comes from a place of hope which harnesses human agency to empower, to progress and to realise a more just society. It is progress focused and people powered by the brave and tenacious. Social change has the integrity to challenge.

We also took the data on what people had said was working in social change and created this word cloud:

Page 7 of 20

Context

A strong theme in our conversations was that the environment we are all working in has changed dramatically in recent years – and continues to

change ever more rapidly. Political events such as Brexit and Trump’s ascendance in the US have made progressive social reformers re-think some of their assumptions about political attitudes and affiliations, and also triggered a new era of public protest. Politics has polarised and there is a lot to fight for.

Austerity and cuts in public spending are hitting many organisations very hard – particularly local service providers. Small charities that once enjoyed stable funding and positive relationships are finding themselves financially imperilled and having to think carefully and creatively about how to deliver their Mission, and in many cases, just survive. There is an acknowledgment by some that the ‘Big State’ we have enjoyed since the second world war is the blip in historical terms and that the current leaner, tighter environment the norm and likely to stay.

The Lobbying Act, anti-advocacy clauses and guidance from the Charity Commission are felt by professional charity campaigners to have had a “chilling effect” on their part of the sector. There seems to be a widespread loss of confidence in the legitimacy of campaigning – notably among trustees. Meanwhile, media stories about excessive pay and questionable fundraising practises have dented public confidence in charities.

Page 8 of 20

There is a wider sense that we are in a period of profound flux and change. In broad social attitudes; in class distinctions; in how people access information; who they respect and trust. Digital technologies have made it much easier to access information, but it is also harder to edit or police even. The way information is managed or manipulated – the Fake News phenomenon - has become a big concern, as has safe and responsible use of data.

These big changes clearly bring many challenges for civil society change-making with implications that extend from tools and tactics of change-making to leadership and governance.

But these changes bring opportunities too. There is probably more public engagement in social change than ever before. For campaigners, digital technology has been hugely liberating and empowering. A new generation of campaigners are using tech to disrupt previous assumptions – much of it grown from political campaigning that has succeeded in pushing insurgents into the mainstream.

It also seems that people have more appetite to be actively engaged in social change. They don’t just want to pay a membership or make a

donation. People want to be active themselves, and many are taking up the mantle and starting their own campaigns and initiatives.

In summary, making change happen is hard. Given this, it is amazing what has been and is achieved given change-making is still largely a voluntary and untutored endeavour. For all these reasons, The Social Change Project is being seen as a welcome and timely initiative that can hopefully start to make a case for more meaningful civil society support.

Q’s: Are we good enough at horizon scanning, power mapping and future-proofing? Where do we go to get up to date and robust analysis and commentary? Are we proving adaptable enough to respond to external changes? Have progressives fallen behind the campaign curve?

When positive change does happen, what are the common features?

Clear moral purpose

Values. Belief. Passion. Vision.

Page 9 of 20

It was good to be reminded in our conversations that social change is always rooted in strong values, beliefs and principles. Behind all instances of social change lies a conviction that something is wrong. Or unjust. Or unfair. Or that things can be better.

Whether a professional campaigner working on climate change or poverty; a community worker helping people realise their local assets and potential; or a mother fighting to get the support her child needs – all these people are driven by passion, conviction and a desire to make something better.

It is also true that all of these people have to believe that change is possible. Indeed, it was striking the sheer ambition of people in the room. They are all visionaries. Driven to make the world, the UK, their communities, their families better. It is powerful stuff. And unique to civil society?

However, there were those in our discussions who felt civil society is not being sufficiently visionary and ambitious. That it has been too focused on dealing the effects of social ills and poor policy rather than campaigning for change that could prevent these problems arising. There is a link to leadership: does the sector have sufficient bold, visionary leaders who can influence public attitudes and political debate?

Ethics

A surprising 'burning issue' from Phase One was the issue of ethics. This was, in part, driven by observations about the Leave campaign at the time of the EU referendum and questions about the ethics of some of the tactics it used.

Participants asked about the role of ethics and values are in driving change – our sense of right and wrong and moral purpose. There were concerns about fake news and data manipulation – what are the ethical limits we should observe in campaigns? And how do we ensure others comply? There was a lot of discussion about the need for more inclusivity in campaigns. And questions about accountability – how should organisations be held accountable for their work?

Q’s: Is civil society proceeding from its moral purpose and mission? Do we have leaders who are championing bold ideas and are willing to challenge? Are the ways in which are pursuing change ethical? Are we sufficiently conscious of this? Does it matter?

Page 10 of 20

Knowing how change works and having the right models, structures and resources

An 'eco-system' of change

The conversations also agreed that for significant instances of social change, there is not one thing alone that drives change. Rather, there is a confluence of events and activities, with different organisations and people playing different parts. The process of social change shows us that it is not about looking at what individual actors and entities did – but the whole ‘eco-system’. Easier to see when looking back – that significant change a push and pull between the public and their appetite for or acceptance of the need for change; involvement of politicians and legislators or other decision-makers to broker the change; often the role played by a significant event – a trigger. But the process also led, pushed, provoked by people of passion and principle. Whether campaigners, activists, reformers. Social change doesn’t happen without visionary people conceiving of it and arguing for it. It is interesting to consider how this role played. Sometimes by a leader – but often more like a conductor. “Dancing with the system” as Duncan Green puts it.

Flexible model/Strategy

Allied with the recognition that change happens within a system, is that change is rarely linear. Usually, it stops and starts and takes unexpected turns. For this reason, it can be hard to know exactly how and when change will happen. Which in turn links with challenges of measurement and attribution, and targets/outcomes discussed later). As one participant put it: “The destination is clear but the journey is not.”

Pursuing change therefore requires flexible agile thinking and action. At the heart of change-making is the ability to read the world and understand why things are as they are. Not as simple as just asserting that power lies over there in the hands of politicians or business leaders and task in hand is to persuade them to think and behave differently. There is much more going on. Interestingly, many of the most useful analogues are being drawn from the tech sector.

Q: Are our models, systems and organisations able to support this much more agile way of thinking and working? How do the requirements of Boards, funders and donors help or hinder? Are we training and support people in the social change community in the right way? Do our organisations and institutions support change-making in the right way?

Page 11 of 20

Social change is about people

When we created a word cloud from all the things people said were working to create social change, the word that emerged front and central was 'PEOPLE'. This is in interesting counterpoint to a similar exercise SMK undertook when it asked people to define 'campaigning'. Then the word was emerged was 'CHANGE'.

In framing our discussion around social change, we revealed a clear and powerful sense of common purpose: it was that people should be at the centre of social change. Not 'empowered' to be part of social change - this is seen as colonial. But actually given the tools of change themselves. Whether community lands trusts; a re-emergence of co-operatives; local voluntary initiatives set up to provide a local service; or national charities wholly devolving campaigns to local groups, people are taking the reins of change in new and significant ways.

This was not just about co-production or collaboration or consultation. Rather a wholesale devolution of power and resources: “That which is not with us is not for us”. And that just, fair and lasting change must have people at its heart. (It is interesting to consider that Brexit was a result of politicians and commentators - the elite? - losing touch with people?).

It is also striking that the way people want to be and are getting involved in social change is changing quite profoundly. This, it seems, is one of the emerging narratives of this project.

One clear theme was the importance of authenticity in public campaigns. Of “lived experience” as it is often called. This is creating some interesting challenges for bigger charities who want to encourage more “user-involvement” but struggle to really devolve decisions and resources. Some are trying (Friends of the Earth?).

Q: Are many charities too focused on members and donors and not beneficiaries? Is this distracting them from their mission and impeding impact? (Ref. Scope)

For those working in service design and delivery, the most interesting and transformative put people at the centre of their organisations in quite radical ways. Not just consulting or even ‘co-creating’. Allowing the service-user or beneficiary define for themselves the support they need and job of charity to find a way of providing it. It could be called ‘radical listening’.

Digital tools have made it much easier for people to express their support their values and support a campaign or action. There is a lot being written

Page 12 of 20

about mobilisation and the ability to reach very large numbers of people to take action on an issue. Critical mass. But interesting counterpoint that direct face to face relationships also key – particularly in recruitment of supporters and activists.

Social movements have been key to many instances of social change and movement building is seen by many as a strategic way to bring about change. Can you building movements be a more sustainable way of working for long-term change? What are the mechanisms and processes around the social change journey? What is critical mass? When “enough people feel uncomfortable”?

There is a keen focus on inclusion in social change linking back to the point about devolution of power and resources to allow people to instigate and bring about change. Who drives change was also discussed, in some instances it is one group driving change for others. Is this right? One interesting counter challenge was summarised with a quote from the west wing “the decisions are made by those who show up”. Fairness/respect for difference is a value closely held by many change-makers and some argue that in order for change to be authentic and lasting it needs to be inclusive. Can you insist on inclusion? Does it take too much time and energy?

There was also, however, a recognition that public opinion/public pressure can be a big brake on change – and the public can be very resistant. Change is messy, disruptive and unsettling.

It is interesting to note that few of the examples of social change given related to consumer power. Perhaps this is not an avenue frequented by change-makers at present? Or perhaps our community was lacking those change-makers?

Collaboration

And linked to this is collaboration. Many instances of successful social change are not the result of one person or entity – it is an effort across people and groups. For ambitious change, this absolutely essential. And not all organisations can play the same roles. Might be a formal, public collation (Time to Change) or something informal and hidden (collaboration between bigger, more influential organisation who have the ear of Government and want to maintain the relationship and smaller, less constrained organisations who can be more outspoken and challenging.

Also evidence that some of the most effective instances of change are collaborations of partners behind one campaign message and with their own organisational profile invisible. ('Network Change'). But coalitions and

Page 13 of 20

networks can be very time-consuming to set up and maintain, and they create even greater problems of attribution. Organisations are highly motivated to show they made the change – not least for fundraising purposes. What does it mean to be a partner in a ‘white-labelled’ campaign?

Q: Is Civil Society collaborating effectively? Does this extend to resources?

Tools, tactics, timing - the day-to-day work of change

Evidence

It was acknowledged that evidence plays a key role in securing social change – from being able to persuade audiences of the existence of the problem to being able to track progress and ultimately claim success. (Impact? Contribution analyses)

Increasingly, projects also need to be able to demonstrate impact and value – including in cash terms. (Cost-benefit analyses)

Language/messaging

There are a whole set of issues around language and messaging. Getting a message across clearly and quickly is at the heart of much social change. Framing. Story-telling – can convey complexity more effectively than abstraction.

Relationship-building.

The ability to build relationships – often with unlikely bed-fellows – absolutely central to effective change-making. Key task is to understand how to make a target care about the issue. What matters to them? What can this campaign offer them? How can we make them care?

Using the law

Legal changes have the potential generate major social and cultural transformations. There is widespread interest in considering how the law can be used more effectively to support change – both from funders, legal professionals and social change practitioners.

Inspiration/Humour/Creativity

Conversations acknowledged how powerful humour can be in engaging audiences and in shifting attitudes. Similarly, creativity can play a big part. The Craftivists Collective, for example, have used traditional craft skills to create campaign to great effect (M&S Living Wage campaign). The

Page 14 of 20

theatre company Cardboard Citizens played a central role alongside Crisis securing the Homelessness Bill. Audiences were keen to consider how more could be made of these tools.

Location/Scale

A strong trend in recent years has been towards ‘place-based change’ – trialling interventions to address issues in one particular place to see if it works before scaling up to take elsewhere. Discussions suggest this is particularly popular with funders, no doubt as they manage the need to make best use of resource in initiatives that they know work. Some practitioners, however, are sceptical about the requirement for scale. Many have a clear preference for local solutions to issues, believing key aspects of the ‘solution’ will be in that community and therefore not easily transferable elsewhere.

What stops change from happening?Many of the things cited as reasons change doesn't happen are the counterpoints of the things that do make change happen. In other words, when the prescriptions given above are not followed. What emerged very clearly, though, is a general belief that the way organisations are led, structured and managed often impede positive change, as do the requirements of funders, and more recently the actions of Government.

Organisations

A common complaint from professional campaigners working in sizeable organisations’ is that they have to spend more time campaigning internally to secure buy-in that they can campaigning externally to actually pursue the change. There is a sense that very many charities have lost their focus on campaigning - for a whole host of reasons - and that organisations are too focused on resources and growth. It can certainly be seen that there are conflicts within organisations between campaigning and fundraising, as campaigns aimed at social change do not always readily align with optimal fundraising messages. There are examples of charities who have taken this challenge on the chin, and changed fundraising targets and strategies quite radically to allow wider charity communications to be solely driven by mission and social purpose (ref. NSPCC). But these are the exception. There is also a perception that charities have become too focused on members and donors - not beneficiaries. The worst offenders were labelled 'zombie charities'. Big, resource-rich charities who are not delivering any meaningful value.

Page 15 of 20

There is an interesting theme about organisational models and which ones are best suited to deliver social value and support positive social change. A clear message form this project is that the best organisations are values, not money driven; they are concerned with humanisation not commercialisation; they are radically transparent; they are permeable and collaborative; they are also flexible and adaptive and open to risk. This isn't about size. There are organisations of all sizes that are operating in these much more open, fluid, distributed way. Many of the analogues are being drawn from tech companies that certainly are adaptive, creative and keen early adopters of ideas and tech. It is interesting to consider whether they could, in return, learn from civil society’s deep engagement in organisational purpose, values and governance.

Another message from our conversations was a need for more collaboration - or solidarity, even - between organisations. Criticism was levelled at

wealthier charities who are able to use their own resources to offer to provide commissioned services at a discount. This is knocking out a great number of smaller charities who are unable to provide this financial investment, but who do bring invaluable local knowledge and relationships. Some argue that

charities need to work together in consortia to take advantage of economies of scale - as in the education system. Others - and some of the most interesting organisational models - are thinking completely differently how to configure themselves and their revenue model in order to survive and thrive as social purpose organisations.

Investment of time thought and £ in defending shared purposes and facilitating collaboration.

There is also a strong link here to leadership and the need for bolder, more visionary leaders in civil society who are willing to challenge the status quo and champion new ways of pursuing change.

Funders

A lot of frustration was also directed at funders. There was a widely shared view that funders can impede change because of an over-insistence on measurement and targets. As one participant put is: “We don’t deliver outputs, we sow seeds”.

Meanwhile, particularly for smaller, front line organisations, there are some real tensions between a desire to campaign and keeping on the right side of funders. There is concern about “biting the hand that feeds you”.

Page 16 of 20

Some of the most interesting comments were from very small initiatives that said they didn’t want to receive any funds at all in part because of the bureaucracy that comes with the money, but also that having to satisfy funders will distract them from their work. In a sense, it was felt that money corrupts.

Individuals

For individuals, much of the discussion was about burn out. That working to achieve social change was tiring, unceasing, often under-resourced, and often thankless. People felt there isn’t enough recognition of the demands of working in these roles, and scant support. In terms of support, the consensus was that the most effective way of learning and being supported was by coming together with others trying to do similar things. The Community of

Practise itself was seen as a really valuable group, and there was a keen desire to see it continue.

In terms of recruiting and mobilising others, there were interesting conversations about apathy, and the challenges of engaging others. There

were also interesting discussion about people needing to be given permission to become active in social change. That not everyone feels they have the right or the skills – and being asked and encouraged can make a big difference.

By way of summary, a strong themes is emerging that change is needed at a social/policy level; from funders; and at an organisational level (systems and leaders) to unlock the potential of people to effect positive social change.

Page 17 of 20

Part Three: Phase Two Propositions/Provocations Models of social change - knowing what works

The world around us is complex, fast-moving and hard to navigate. Are we reading the world accurately and responding effectively? Do we have the right analytical models and tools to ensure we stay abreast of changes and can cope with complexity? Do we have the flexibility, the adaptability and the openness to experiment and take risks to thrive? Are we future-proofing our efforts? Where does civil society go to access this insight and intelligence, and how are we equipping ourselves to be fit for purpose?

Better use of tactics - smarter, harder, faster

How is change happening in this more complex world? To what extent has digital technology changed everything? What does this mean for the way we seek to influence, reach and engage? What about story-telling and narratives? Are we getting our message across in the best possible ways? And what about use of facts and evidence in the era of fake news? What part do human relationships and connection play in today's digitally enabled world? How should we engage with formal power, particularly when power holders are not natural allies? What about the law and other formal instruments? Can we make better use of these? Or creativity? And what about scale? When should we think big? And when does working at a smaller, more local level make a bigger difference?

Unlocking the power of people

Never before have so many people been engaged in campaigning and social action. From on-line petitions to local social enterprises and community initiatives, people are taking power back and seeking ways to be more involved in change. How significant is this newly emergent evidence of people-powered change? Is it sustainable and how can it be grown? What does this more bottom-up engagement mean for bigger organisations, and how can they most effectively adapt? And what lessons can these new self-grown entities learn from old and wiser endeavours?

Collaboration - coalitions, networks and alliances

Evidence suggests that the most successful examples of change are coming from movements build by coalitions and networks - often uniting behind a 'white-labelled' campaign. Elsewhere, shifts in the flow of money towards

Page 18 of 20

bigger, richer organisations is pushing smaller, local organisations off the pitch. How can organisations work together towards common goals, without expending too much energy just maintaining the partnerships? What role can different sorts of organisations play in the social change eco-system? What does this mean for attribution, satisfying funders and protecting fundraising efforts?

Moral purpose, ethics and integrity

Social change is at its heart about imagining a different and better world. It is an endeavour driven by purpose, passion, ambition and bloody-minded determination. Is civil society daring to dream big enough? Are we led by our ambition and vision, and is this sufficiently visible externally? What about ethics and the way we go about our work? Are we inclusive? Are we tolerant? Are we principled in our endeavours? And what should we do when others aren't?

Organisational structures, governance & leadership

Are our organisations fit for purpose? Do our structures and cultures allow us to be as effective as we can be? What about 'professionalisation' and its emphasis on performance management and marketisation? What do targets mean for change-makers? Can we meaningfully track and report on all change? Which organisational models best support effective change-making? Is the charity a model fit for the future? Why not be a CIC or a CLG? What difference do different legal entities make to how we think and act? And what about our governance models and our leaders?

Language and re-framing

The word 'campaign' is understood in multiple ways, is liked by some and loathed by others, and seems to have become quite toxic for government and funders. How can we talk about our work in a way that is clearer and more comfortable? Is there a way of framing the work of social change in a way that takes out the toxicity and makes it easier for policy-makers and trustees to engage? Do we need to think about social change in a radically different way to unlock this new positive engagement?

All about the money, money. Making money work not hinder.

Money is flowing towards bigger organisations and away from the small. And yet evidence suggests smaller organisations offer a much better ROI. How can we ensure resources flow more effectively to the places that will make best use of them? How should big, wealthy charities be thinking and acting

Page 19 of 20

to make the most of their resources? For very small entities, some of the most interesting reject funding altogether. What do we think of this? Is this a positive in a period of austerity and a smaller State? Or should civil society resist taking on work for free?

Supporting people to do this work

People we have spoken to as part of this project so far say they are hungry for more opportunities to discuss the issues raised as part of TSCP, and want more opportunities to spend time with others pursuing change. For them, access to formal training and learning is less important than access to a peer community that comes together to openly share ideas and experiences. Trying to effect change is also a tiring business. Many we spoke to - including those in bigger organisations - talked about burn out, a failure to realise how hard change-making is, and a lack of support to keep going. How can we give this more personal support to those pursuing change? How can we keep energy levels going?

A vision for a newly emboldened, fit and thriving civil society

Looking across all of the above, what do we think needs to happen for the potential of civil society to be unlocked? What would a confident, capable and effective civil society look like? And how will we get there?

Common features of doing social change

Vision, belief, ambition Clarity of purpose Understanding and reading the world Being experts in our craft - knowing the right tools for the job Flexibility, adaptability, creativity Listening, openness to others Relationship-building, often with 'unusual suspects' Knowing how to reach, engage, recruit, mobilise Ability to collaborate, work across organisations A lack of personal ego/organisational brand presence Tenacity

Page 20 of 20