Combatting homelessness leading to change, or promoting change to combat homelessness?

A colleague of mine, Phil Oakley, recently said to me that BHT has its Mission Statement completely the wrong way round. He said that it should read “promoting change, creating opportunities, combating homelessness” rather than “combating homelessness, creating opportunities, promoting change”.

On Twitter I follow Felicity Reynolds, the chief executive of the Mercy Foundation which works towards ending homelessness through affordable housing and support. I have never met Felicity. She lives and works in Sydney, Australia. Such is the value of Twitter (5 years old today, I understand) that it enables me to follow the work of colleagues in different parts of the world.

Earlier today , Felicity wrote, “Housing solves homelessness. Ongoing support, when needed, sustains people in housing.” She continues, “‘Housing First’ isn’t ‘Housing Only’ . Housing comes first, but ongoing support needs to focus on client choice. I’m working towards a time when none of our fellow citizens are consigned to living long-term on a street”.

The different positions taken by Phil and by Felicity demonstrates the chicken and egg dilemma for those of us working in the world of homelessness. Should our first priority be to get somebody housed or should we be looking at the underlying causes of why they became homeless in the first place? 

Most people say you should do them at the same time. I know that part of my experience has been that when someone is housed before the underlying problem is addressed, the likelihood of addressing that problem becomes harder. 

The counter argument is that it is impossible to address an alcohol or drug problem or mental health issue while someone is still living on the street. I absolutely agree with that, but I’m not sure whether providing someone with a permanent home is the immediate answer. We need to get people off the street at the very earliest opportunity, but then we must address the causes of homelessness and actively promote the pace and scale of change.

That is why I like the approach taken by Phil. He says that by promoting change it allows individuals to make the most of the opportunities that exist to tackle homelessness themselves. That approach asks the question: is BHT a homelessness organisation or a change organisation? I don’t see them as mutually exclusive, but we must ensure that we don’t merely provide accommodation and support, we must continue to build on our growing reputation for promoting change.

I am interested in what others think about the pace and scale of change. At what point do we accept that sufficient change has been made that means that a tenancy is sustainable? And what consequences should there be for those who choose not to change (as opposed to those not able to change)?

In a world of decreasing resources, how do we prioritise our financial resources and efforts while at the same time, as Felicity says, reaching “a time when none of our fellow citizens are consigned to living long-term on a street”.

Twitter is more than ‘celebrity’ gossip; it is where real debate is happening in Brighton & Hove

A man sat on a bar stool in the middle of a pub and announced loudly “Gather round, gather round, come and listen to the fascinating insights I have on all the issues I find interesting”. Needless to say, the only attention he received was abuse from the resident drunk who alone thought his own views would be of even greater interest to anyone who would give him the time of day.

In the corner of the pub was a group of friends discussing an issue of the day. The discussion was good humoured, sometimes passionate, clearly enjoyable. After a while, the man on the bar stool moved across and sat on the edge of the group of friends. After a while he chipped in with a view that was well received. He soon was part of the conversation. It felt much better than being berated by the resident drunk.

I sometimes feel that blogging is a bit like the man on the bar stool. Take this blog, I post things that are of interest to me and I believe relevant to BHT. I may find the themes fascinating, but does anyone else? I hope so, but is there a different discussion going on elsewhere? I know from the number of people who view this blog that I must be doing something right, but from the number of people who leave comments (very few) I must be doing something not right.

A year ago I found the idea of Twitter shallow, to be avoided if at all possible. But in the last few weeks I ‘got’ Twitter. It is the conversation that is going on in the corner of the pub and all over the place. And the discussion involves people who we may rarely see or hear from.

The key to Twitter are hashtags that allow you to follow a stream of tweets building up a debate.  For example, #citycampbtn allowed me to follow a wider debate about issues and initiatives at the recent City Camp Brighton event.  While in one session, I was able to see what was emerging in other groups.  Since then, #myurbanangel has allowed people to follow how the ‘winning’ idea from City Camp Brighton is being taken forward.

Twitter can be dismissed as no more than celebrities, who we will never meet, sharing with their adoring public that they are walking down the road scratching their bum! How wrong is that view. Most celebrities can be avoided (thank goodness) simply by not following them. There is a huge amount of informed discussion out there, not just ‘celebrity’ gossip. Join the debate.

The curse of Emails and unwanted communications … and BHT’s wonderful eZines!

The internet and all that comes with it – websites, email, Twitter, blogs, and the rest – has fundamentally changed the way we work. When I started at BHT in 1985, I brought my own typewriter into work. I recall my colleague Paul Barry explaining to me in the early 1990′s about “the world wide web”. It will never catch on, I thought to myself. Not my greatest forecast.

Nowadays, I receive on average almost 100 emails each day. I am sent direct emails from colleagues and others. I am copied into exchanges between members of staff, between BHT and outside organisations, and am ‘blind copied’ by others. Alarm bells ring when someone tells me, but I copied you into an email. While electronic exchanges abound, I suspect communication has suffered. That’s real, effective communication.

I also receive electronic newsletters by email, and countless emails offering to provide cost-effective replacement for our fleet of vans (we don’t have any vans!), mobile software for our direct labour organisation (we don’t have one of those either), and help with claiming back credit card fees (I tend to avoid such fees). Fortunately, our fantastic IT department filters out offers for watches/chronometers, as well as assistance with enhancing my ‘prowess’ …. !

I am spending a few minutes each day ‘unsubscribing’ myself from different mailings.  I think it is having some effect.  Last week it was about 10 each day, yesterday and today just 5 altogether.  Why do they do it? I ask myself.  I have no interest in vans, watches, or whatever.  Then I thought, BHT sends out its eZine each month to several hundred supporters.  Well, we assume they are supporters or at least people we hope will support us.

Each month we have one or two people unsubscribing, but fortunately we have many more than that asking to be added to the eZine mailing list.  The BHT electronic magazine hopefully provides an easy read about our work and it tends to receive a positive response.  I am frequently surprised when people refer to having read something in the eZine.  Let us know what you think of it.  And if you are not already subscribing please email my colleague lucy.enever@bht.org.uk who will be delighted to add you to the list.  Afterall, if you don’t like it, you can always unsubscribe!

Does the BHT website do it for you?

The BHT website has gone through 3 phases of life.  The first, in the early days of the internet, was confined to one page with some, but not all, of BHT’s telephone numbers.  Even one of them was wrong! It was truly diabolical!

A few years ago we launched a ‘proper’ website, with details of services, reports, contact details (we think they were accurate) and loads of other stuff.  We even had pictures and updated the news section from time to time.

About a year ago the layout and design of the website was taken on by someone with talent (I was largely responsible for it until then). It looks crisper, is updated quite frequently, and it certainly not something to feel embarassed about.  But is it relevant?

A few months ago, with some colleagues, we had a wonderful session with the incomparable Anne Caborn, who talked us through the relevance of our website.  It wasn’t all bad, but she showed that the website is written from BHT’s perspective more than from the perspective of those visiting the site.  For example, I looked at the website from the perspective of a local councillor in a seaside town who wanted to know about issues of young homelessness in his Borough. Had he done a Google search, he may not have come across our website at all! Had he come across the website, he was unlikely to find the information he was looking for.

In essence, most people, you and me alike, go on sites mainly because we have a question we want answered, an issue we need explaining, or a problem that we need help with.  Many sites are written by people who want to say how wonderful they, their cause or their organisation is. They fail to answer questions, explain issues or solve problems.

Over the next year, BHT will be revising its website, and are this week putting greater energy into blogging which is a more ‘dynamic’ medium than a website itself.  I would be interested in any views you may have about our online presence, and ideas you may have to make it more relevant to you and others.  I can be contacted at andy.winter@bht.org.uk.

Anne Caborn can be found on Twitter.

The Blogosphere: enhancing and damaging reputations

For reasons I won’t go into, I have been reflecting on the issue of organisational reputation this week. Most organisations spend a great deal of time, energy and money on building an image. Often it is based on years of positive practice, continuous improvement, and customer satisfaction.

But reputation can be lost overnight, through negligence, error, omission, accident, or false allegation. At present, reputations are being damaged because of ‘non-dom’ status, a footballer sending of photos of himself, alleged bullying in high office, and an another footballer’s alleged infidelity with the former partner of a former teammate.

It may reflect on individuals moral standing, but none of these reflect on how well one does one’s job.

In the past, when most information was circulated through the mass media, greater challenges existed for individuals to be critical, or positive, about an organisation, whether justified or not. With the emergence of new media, it is relatively easy for an individual, or group of individuals, to start a campaign to undermine the credibility and reputation of another.

Fortunately, BHT has not been subject to criticism other than a couple of blogs that made some inaccurate comments regarding the industrial dispute that took place in BHT last year. The blogosphere offers great opportunities, and pose significant risks, to organisations and individuals.

In BHT we are encouraging staff and service users to block, to talk about issues impacting on themselves, on BHT and on how we can make communities within which we work better places to live. The intention is that in ‘BHT bloggers’ make a constructive contribution to resolving problems, answering questions, and exploring issues.

What I hope I never read in a BHT related blog is criticisms of another organisation or individual. If you think we have not maintained that standard, please let me know.

Teaching an old dog new tricks – blogging and tweeting!

My colleague, Lucy Enever, has just begun blogging.  She is one of several members of staff who I have been encouraging to start blogging.  As my PA, I spend time with her most mornings, discussing the day ahead and reflecting on issues in the news and issues that impact on BHT. 

Often she has really a interesting perspective on issues, and it triggers my thinking.  Since I started blogging more consistently at the beginning of the year, our conversations have led to a number of posts.  (I have another blog, separate from work, on cricket, but I have spectacularly failed to blog consistently – it isn’t easy for someone at my age to learn new tricks!).

Because of her original thinking it was only natural that Lucy was one of the first members of staff I encouraged to start blogging, so I am delighted she has taken the plunge.  Her first post was about how she has been encouraging people in BHT to embrace new media, and how her pleadings had fallen on deaf ears.  What she didn’t say was the dinosaur was me!

I had played with my cricket blog, and was persuaded by Lucy to try Twitter. I originally found Twitter the most shallow networking forum in the world.  I was useless on Facebook, and appalled at the jargon (closing a Facebook account is called “Facebook Suicide” – disgusting).

Then over the Christmas holidays I read a couple of books that opened my eyes to the new reality of “new rules” for communication, PR and marketing.  While BHT has been quite successful in its PR output, the approach we were taking was PR of the 1980’s and 90’s.  We had to change, and new media is at the heart of it.

So, staff at BHT are being encouraged to blog, Tweet (I don’t think I will ever be comfortable with the jargon), and other things that I am yet to grasp.  By embracing a Thought Leadership approach, we don’t have to censor, restrict or police what is being said.  There are the normal expectations on personal conduct that apply to letters, emails and conversations. Of course racism, sexism, and other abusive behaviour is not ok, nor is commenting negatively about other organisations and individuals, directly or implied.

So, in 2010 I have entered a brave new world.  I am not sure if I am doing it right, but I guess this old dog is learning new tricks.  Thanks, Lucy.

Doing ‘Thought Leadership’ may be risky but it is worth it

I saw a cartoon that made me laugh.  A woman was saying to a man: “Why should I follow you online?  I find you boring enough in person!”.

I am becoming a real bore at work, talking at every opportunity about “Thought Leadership”.  This a concept that I am hoping will become a key theme within BHT during 2010.  Thought leadership is fundamentally about sharing ideas, concepts, innovation with others, on a peer basis, within an organisation and beyond.

In the competitive world in which many organisations operate, we can be too concerned about ‘competitive advantage’ and ‘commercial confidentiality’. Thought Leadership is more concerned about getting things right, as part of a process rather than publishing or announcing infallible truths.

Well that is what I think it is.  You may know better or have something to add to my understanding.

There must have been a pioneer who once drew a line on a rock face with a piece of chalk. Someone else will have added a line across the first line and maybe a circle on top, thereby producing the first stick drawing of a person. Hands and feet will have followed, noses, ears, hair.  And in due course someone painted the Mona Lisa, all because someone once had the vision to draw a single line on the wall of their cave.  It is called learning.  It is called civilisation.

So too with Thought Leadership.  I have a whole range of questions, issues and problems that need attention, not least how BHT will have to respond to the the squeeze in public funds and likely changes in public policy following the general election – no matter who wins. 

Those in formal leadership positions in organisations may get it right some of the time when they state the clear policies of their organisation.  But we might get it more right more often if we say, “This is my current thinking on this issue.  What do you think?”. 

BHT had a bruising year in 2009, with contenious issues being discussed and decisions being made about salaries and terms and conditions of employment.  We did our best, but we could have done it better. 

That is why we are starting to discuss Thought Leadership within BHT.  It has received a mixed response, not least the suggestion that ideas can be debated in open, when ideas and concepts are unrefined, and in public through blogs such as this.  It’s fine to have concens.  By exploring opportunities and risk, and benefiting from the experiences and insights of others, we are doing Thought Leadership.

I am interested in your views and experiences about open debate, the development of ideas, the evolution of policies, the testing of ethics. Please comment on this blog or email me your views andy.winter@bht.org.uk.

How should charities like BHT raise funds?

A survey on behalf of the Charities Aid Foundation has found that supporters want charities to make greater use of email and social networking sites to communicate with currentand potential supporters. 69% said they thought charities should make more use of social networking sites.

92% want charities to focus on demonstrating the impact of their work. 53% felt that charities should devote more of their resources to fundraising, but 82% said they should use volunteers to bring in more money.

Only 12% said that they thought charities should do more telephone fundraising and 13% said they should do more direct mailing.

It’s a tough one for those of us who have to make decisions about the use of precious resources. At BHT we spend very little on fundraising activities and have, in fact, cut back on this because we felt that the returns we would receive would reduce during the recession.

I’m always interested to know what our supporters (current and future!) think about our communication and fundraising approach. Let me know what you think, either by leaving a comment or by emailing me directly at andy.winter@bht.org.uk.