This week I read an interesting blog post  by Toby Seddon entitled ‘The politics of recovery’. The article draws the comparison between previous crime reduction and harm reduction strategies that have now given way to a more recovery orientated agenda in formulating modern drug policy. The tone of this piece is one of scepticism outlining that continuity is often king, and that recent policies have much in common with their predecessors on  a strategic level. So where does this leave the implementation of a recovery agenda on the front line, and more importantly in our local communities?

Debates around Harm Reduction vs. Abstinence have raged on for many a year, with some holding the opinion that a harm reduction approach can be divisive in terms of effective recovery (Harm reduction vs. recovery: the false dichotomy). However, could it not be argued that recovery including (for some) abstinence is the ultimate harm reduction tool? The effective delivery of recovery initiatives in the community, and a culture change at the grass roots of treatment service delivery could tip the balance. If we are to achieve a ‘Paradigm Shift’ in the long term development of drug policy in the UK, then a combined effort of government, treatment services and the community will be required to put some meat on the bones of a recovery agenda.

Initial feedback from service users in Maidstone is very positive and there is a genuine excitement about the prospect of some of the programmes that are on offer here. Many have stated that this is the first time that they feel ‘the system’ really recognises the needs of those that are using it. In reality it is still early days but the initial projection for Whole Person Recovery in Maidstone is good, so could this be the preverbal ‘long shot that might just work’ for the government in regard to shaping a better and more inclusive society for all in the future?

On this, the 1st of June, I would like to wish all those on their recovery journey as well as those supporting it, a very Happy Recovery Month!

Martyn (our Maidstone Recovery Community Organiser) and I have been setting up a programme of events across West Kent (in collaboration with CRi and the Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust) to bring communities around the 3 hubs together to celebrate recovery and raise awareness that people can and do recover.

These events are part of the Public Events Programme we have created within our Whole Person Recovery Programme. They include activities for service users and the wider recovery community, for the friends and families of those on their recovery journeys, and for the wider community.

In Maidstone we have a Peer Support Awareness Day which has brought together the well-known 12-step groups such as AA, NA and CA with other community organisations and peer support groups, in one place to talk to service users and their families about what support they can get in and around Maidstone. This will be followed by a fantastic free community day in a local park with local bands, performance artists, BBQ, face-painting, balloon launch and speakers.

In Tonbridge we are de-camping to a local park for a community picnic with games and [hopefully] sunshine. This will be followed by a community day in Tunbridge Wells with a balloon launch, recovery tree, information desk, performance art and refreshments.

In Gravesend we are setting up home in an empty shop right on the high street thanks to 3Space. Here we will have all sorts of group activities, arts and crafts, information and awareness days, and a volunteering fair.

These are just some of the ways we’re celebrating recovery through June… We’d love to hear what you’re doing.

Follow us on Twitter @RSArecovery or #WPRrecoverymonth to keep up to date with the opportunities to get more involved and to see how it progresses over the month.

 My first foray into the world of work was as a Saturday girl at the library in my local town.  No two days were ever the same and so many people came through the doors for one reason or another.  It has saddened me therefore to see the decline of funding for libraries and the continued closing of them over the past few years.  However, a couple of weeks ago I visited a library that has been bought back from the brink by a loyal band of volunteers. 

This was New Cross Learning, previously known as New Cross People’s Library.  The library faced closure in 2011, but thanks to a group of local volunteers (working with the support of local charity Bold Vision) it remained open and has become a vibrant hub within the community.  In a blog last year my colleague Sam Thomas spoke about visiting the library, and the amazing work of the volunteers there. 

The event was a celebration of the library’s achievements over the last year.  The festivities included cakes, street dance performances, children’s storytelling, opportunities for catching up and meeting people and awards from a children’s poetry competition.  The event truly demonstrated how the library has become a hub in the New Cross community.  All these activities regularly take place in the library, and make use of the space available between the book shelves to give the whole place a vibrant feel.

A brand new entrance to the library on New Cross High Street is a participatory artwork in progress, funded by RSA Catalyst.  

New Cross Learning has really restored my faith in the future of libraries – I’ll be back soon.

Like most people I know, I accept the gravity of climate change at an intellectual level, but don’t live my life as if the message has really sunk in. It seems that many if not most people reading this blog will be in a similar state: fully aware of the balance of evidence but somehow trapped in patterns of thinking and behaving that seem to prevent us from aligning our actions with our awareness.

Today, via twitter, I read an ‘oldie but a goodie’ blog by David Roberts at the wonderful Grist site that offered some fresh perspective on why this might be the case. Simply stated, as long as we think of climate change as an environmental issue we allow it to be something outside of our lives. When we realise it is not an environmental issue, it is harder to carry on as we have been before:

Environmentalism” is simply not equipped to transform the basis of human culture. It grew up to address a specific, bounded set of issues. For 50 years, (American) environmental politics has been about restraining the amount of damage industries can do. Environmental campaigners have developed a set of strategies for that purpose, designed to overcome the resistance of industries and politicians to such restraints. And they’ve been successful in a number of areas. So when climate change entered (American) politics via environmentalism, that is the model into which it was slotted. Environmental campaigners set about restraining the amount of greenhouse gases industry can emit, and industry set about resisting. Greens and industry fought ferociously, but in the wake of the victories of the’70s, the public largely watched with indifference, barring a few episodes where support swung one way or another (usually as much due to economic circumstances as anything).

The fact that climate change became framed as an environmental issue meant an opportunity was missed. Instead of leaping on to the existing environmental movement will all the limitations that brings, and opportunity was lost to form a climate change movement that could target the problem more directly, more holistically and more powerfully (because it wouldn’t be lumped together will all the other environmental issues).

Two things fall out of that:

1) We may need to actively build a climate movement that deliberately distances itself from environmentalism.

2) We need to start being more careful with our language. Perhaps we shouldn’t conflate climate change with other environmental issues, even if they are related. And for a while now, I have felt we should always say ‘climate crisis’ rather than ‘climate change’, if only to prevent knee-jerk reactions to the more familiar term.

More generally, I like this kind of deep reframing. There is a lot of peripheral, half-hearted, tokenistic work done on climate change. Over the last few months I have occasionally tried to highlight some of the approaches or suggestions that made a deeper impression, for instance here, here and here and I am glad to be aware of this one.

So what follows? If climate change is not an environmental issue, what exactly should we call it: an existential threat? a planetary emergency? an economic problem? The ultimate test of democracy? I am not sure, but the basic idea is sound. It is not just another green issue, but the defining challenge of our time.

I met Steph McLaren in my first week at the RSA, when she was working on the UpRise anti-racism festival and I was trying to work out I was going to find time to cope with all the ideas bubbling away in the 8,500-strong London RSA Fellowship.  We talked about her work with young people, and I knew we’d have to find something good for us to do together.  It’s taken over a year and a half for that to happen, in the shape of an event on collaboration and young people which took place last Thursday.

In a few weeks I’m moving to a new role at the RSA helping increase engagement in our research projects, and in terms of personal satisfaction it’s hugely pleasing to finish my work with London Fellows by returning to that first conversation with Steph.  More importantly, though, I think anyone who was at the workshop the she and Ansel Neckles ran yesterday afternoon with more than twenty RSA Fellows would say it was worth being patient.  The aim of the session was collaboration: how to get people who’re working with (or interested in working with) young people to pool their ideas and resources. ‘Collabo-magic’ was what they were after — and they certainly got it.

Steph and Ansel started out with some sage advice on what makes collaboration possible, which (if they’ll forgive some wild oversimplification) boils down to listening carefully, being open to new ideas and setting some basic ground rules about how decisions are made in a group. It sounds easy enough in principle, but (as I’ve discussed in other posts, the practice is where things get tricky.

For that reason, I was all the more pleased by what happened next. In groups, we looked at three kinds of ideas: those that tackle social problems faced by young people; those that bring together different generations; and those that celebrate young people’s endeavours and achievements. At the end of the three hours, each of the groups had come up with some brilliant ideas — and two of them were confident enough in what they’d achieved to make the pitch for a £500 down-payment on an RSA Catalyst award. 

The winning idea was a reverse mentoring scheme that connects young people with businesses that need help with social media. There are potential benefits both ways: young people get to experience and network in an environment they might not otherwise have access to; the businesses get some savvy advice from ‘digital natives’.

The idea is still very much on the drawing board (as you’d expect for the fruit of two hours’ work) but hopefully the small investment will help get it happening in practice.  What’s most pleasing is that the three Fellows who came up with the idea had never met before. Emily Druiff, who runs an amazing community gallery in Peckham has already suggested a group of young people in the area who might help pilot the scheme.

It would be remiss of me not to also mention the other project that was presented on the night, an alternative guide to the museums of London produced by participants in the Young Graduate for Museums and Galleries (YGMG) programme. Two Fellows – Matthew Gansallo, who runs the programme, and Rob Reed, an illustrator — have worked on the guide together and are now looking to start disseminating it. It’s a brilliant project and deserves some backing. Can any Fellows help make it happen? On the basis of yesterday’s workshop, nothing would surprise me.

If you happen to travel through Shoreditch overground tube station you may have noticed the bike repair shop that Levi’s has set up just off Boxpark, the new pop-up shopping arcade. Opened earlier this month, the shop is giving free repairs to any cyclist who needs some bike maintenance and is free to drop by. The idea is fairly simple: commuters get a chance to have their bike ‘tuned’, while Levi’s have the opportunity to showcase their new 405 ‘commuters range’ for cyclists. This includes waterproof high-tech jeans and jackets that are designed specifically for cycling in.

Levi’s new shop seems to be the latest in a long and growing list of “downstream CSR” initiatives being implemented by major global brands (see Matthew Taylor’s 2011 annual lecture for more detail). In fact, it has some very close parallels with the Nike+ running platform. Here, the brand’s followers can join an online community of runners (now totalling some several million members), set running goals, get tips from coaches, take part in global challenges, download route maps and so on. What Nike, Levi’s and others have in common is that they are all seeking to build brand loyalty and sales while simultaneously shaping the behaviours of the people who use their products; in this case through running and cycling.

Broadly speaking, we can see this type of business-led behaviour change taking place on three different levels: products, networks and narratives. Nike is an example of a company that has combined all three to great effect. Their new ‘Fuelband’ distance tracker is an innovative new product helping runners to keep track of progress and stay motivated; their Nike+ community is a supportive network of athletes which is growing daily, propelled by their intelligent use of social media; and their well-crafted adverts (e.g. ‘the human chain’) are creating a compelling identity for their brand while inculcating a narrative of improvement and determination within their followers.

While the benefits of the downstream CSR model are increasingly apparent to large corporate brands, it is interesting to hear that consumers are also demanding that businesses begin to play a role in behaviour change. According to research undertaken by Havas Media last year, some 85 per cent of people now expect companies to get actively involved in promoting individual and collective wellbeing, quite a dramatic increase on the 15 per cent which said so in 2010.

These are promising signs for the growing movement of downstream CSR activities. However, my sense is that the real test of such an approach will be whether it is replicable among smaller firms and those which have a less compelling brand. In other words, is it only the likes of Apple, Nike, Levi’s and Procter & Gamble that can hold sway over consumer behaviours, or can local, place-based companies have an impact too? More importantly, is this kind of CSR something that SMEs and individual entrepreneurs are even aware of, or are willing and able to sign up to? Given that these smaller companies account for some 60 to 70 per cent of GDP across developed countries, it is perhaps important that we begin to spread the debate about brands and behaviour change beyond the usual suspects.

I’d be interested in hearing from anyone who has some examples of how small companies are embedding downstream CSR within their practices.

Jonathan Rowson wrote a couple of days ago on Tim Jackson’s argument that the pursuit of ever more productive labour harms some things that we should value; care, craft & culture. Far from being a lone voice in this, Tim is joined by many, and in this quick post I wanted to highlight the growing number of ’maker videos’ that illustrate the same message in a more sensory way (turn the sound on before watching!).

Here is the video by Juriaan Booij to accompany the recent Power of Making exhibition at the V&A.

Here is another of Tom Donhou in his workshop in Norwich, where he speaks about his move from a London design consultancy to his bike-building cottage industry:

Lastly, I came across (in a recent Design Observer post with some criticism of the predictability of the genre) this rather nice video of Thomas Forsyth casting a giant brass nut:

Enough to make you put down the mouse and pick up a brazing torch!

Those who have spent the last two years arguing against austerity are exhibiting a very palpable sense of vindication. Painful economic data accompanied by the shifting political mood across Europe has led to a pandemic of itoldyousoitis amongst Keynesians and their supporters. “If only they’d listened to Ed B” seems to be the underlying premise of every Labour press release.  Even the hawkish IMF is now drafted in as endorsement of the new turn.

 No doubt if I was still working for the TUC I’d be joining the party but looking in now from outside, this display seems absurdly premature and potentially dangerous.

 Two years ago it was the cheerleaders for austerity who were in clover arguing with forceful confidence that cuts would create the certainty and space the private sector needed to generate growth and jobs.  This vision of ‘expansionary fiscal consolidation’ was an over-selling of austerity that failed to take account of the current headwinds and volatility that make the effect of any course of economic action highly unpredictable.

 So it is ironic that those urging a fiscal loosening are making precisely the same mistake. Labour in the UK, Hollande in France and Syriza in Greece are all riding an electoral high off the back of the claim that they can create jobs and growth through stimulus and other interventions. In any normal recession they may be right but this is far from a normal recession. You can take your pick of the events which might turn today’s bold stimulus and growth package into tomorrow’s damp squib.

 The biggest threat surely has to be another sudden spike in prices possibly driven by unexpectedly strong growth in China or a military conflict in the Middle East.  And there is enough political uncertainty closer to home to spring a surprise.  It was the result of the Greek elections, of course, which led to the latest crisis of economic confidence.  Similar occurrences in Italy or Spain would be felt even more deeply.

 Or maybe it is just the sheer depth of our economic funk which would swamp any new package of spending.  Indeed, there is little agreement amongst the looseners about how much needs to be spent to kick-start growth.  Nor is there agreement about how to actually do the spending. Sooner or later, however, the arguing has to stop and politicians have to plump for one or other set of measures. But given there is so little certainty even amongst the proponents of extra spending, the risk is high that politicians will make the wrong choice and stimulus has little impact or simply takes too long.

 The biggest threat to the looseners, however, is the obvious fact that austerity is going to continue even under their watch.  The rhetoric of Hollande and Miliband may sound like a bright new dawn awaits but neither plans to significantly alter the path of deficit reduction.  Which leaves one wondering whether things will actually feel that different once the new mood turns into real policy.

 Many may feel this is little more than the political equivalent of a ‘dog bites man’ story. Politicians over-promise to win votes, fail to deliver, then lose votes at which point the electoral pendulum swings back.  Once again, under normal circumstances this conclusion may be fine but these are not normal times. The intensity of the crisis and the resulting suffering is clearly making European voters more receptive to parties once dismissed as fringe.  Should stimulus underwhelm so soon after the failure of hard-line austerity, the risk must be a more general collapse in credibility for the centre-ground.  An outcome which could be followed by the rapid rise of highly unpredictable and divisive political forces.

 As a politician on the up, the temptation is great to emphasise your positive claims and downplay nuance and doubt.  There is little premium on humility in the political game. But this time around it is vital that centre-ground politicians keep in mind that the political consequences of their failure may well affect us just as deeply as them.

An economy of care, craft and culture. Who could be against that? At an explicit level, nobody, but all the emphasis on ‘jobs’, ‘growth’ and ‘productivity’ risks undermining all of these things in the name of labour productivity- growth fuelled by increasing the the economic outputs from human inputs.

I just came upon a further restatement of the argument against the relentless and arguably slightly mad pursuit of economic growth that we have considered here before. Tim Jackson gives a typically lucid account of why the pursuit of labour productivity, which is widely assumed to be a sound economic objective, should perhaps be entered into the new edition of the DSM (the reading of which should also perhaps be categorised as a further thing to be entered into the DSM… ad infinitum…but that’s another story.)

The thrust of Jackson’s argument is that we should actually strive to be less productive, because the pursuit of productivity has not been sufficiently thought through. The point is not just about the mathematics of climate change and the need for absolute rather than relative decoupling of economic growth from ecological impact. He also argues that three of the things that suffer most directly from the pursuit of labour productivity are things that are not based on the creation of economic output but still matter hugely to our quality of life and shared prosperity:

1) Care: the time taken to look after each other

2) Craft: the time taken to make or fix things ourselves and/or make them really good rather than merely functional.

3) Culture: the time taken to produce artistic works of enduring value.

These things all suffer from the logic of increasing output per hour. There has to be an answer to the ‘what’s the value of that?’ that is not reducible to economic terms, and yet, at the same time, we need to pay the people working in those areas in a way that reflects that value. Many have given up on what they love to do, do well, and is of value to others, because they can’t pay their bills by doing so.

The full article is here and I like the way the hard-headed way that it ends, because such a claim is serious enough to be worth fighting for in practical language.

“Of course, a transition to a low-productivity economy won’t happen by wishful thinking. It demands careful attention to incentive structures — lower taxes on labor and higher taxes on resource consumption and pollution, for example. It calls for more than just lip service to concepts of patient-centred care and student-centred learning. It requires the dismantling of perverse productivity targets and a serious investment in skills and training. In short, avoiding the scourge of unemployment may have less to do with chasing after growth and more to do with building an economy of care, craft and culture. And in doing so, restoring the value of decent work to its rightful place at the heart of society.”

By Melanie Andrews

Jonathan Ive RDI – the British designer responsible for Apple’s iMac, iPod, iPhone and iPad was knighted at Buckingham Palace this week. Listening to an interview with him on the Today programme Sir Jonathan said that he knew at the age of seven that “what I love to do is draw and make stuff”. The goal of Apple was not to make money, he said, but to design the best possible products. “There is beauty when something works and it works intuitively,” he said.

I couldn’t help but think of the RSA’s Student Design Awards as we are proud to have Jonathan among our talented alumni. The RSA has been aware of Jonathan’s special design talent since he was a student at Newcastle Polytechnic. We also had a hand in steering him to his future career in California. He won two Student Design Awards consecutively in 1988 for, rather tellingly, a telephone brief for both ‘household and office use’ and in 1989 for ‘the intelligent ATM’. In both these projects he displayed an interest in both the hardware and software design of each which has been the winning formula for Apple products. Winning an RSA internship at Pitney Bowes design studio in Connecticut and a travel award, Jonathan had the experience of working and travelling in the USA for the first time. “I immediately fell in love with San Francisco and desperately hope that I can return there sometime in the future – it far exceeded my expectations” he auspiciously noted in his RSA travel report.

Design has always been central to the work of the RSA. In 1924, as part of its advocacy of good design, the RSA established our student award scheme with the goal of linking education and industry in beneficial partnerships; in a contemporary form, this scheme continues today. I have had the privilege of working on the Student Design Awards for many years. The reason that it continues to thrive and remain relevant is that, during the course of its 88 year history, the scheme has been consistently reviewed, adapted and re-focused to respond to the prevailing demands and concerns of education, industry and society.

We continue to challenge emerging young designers to consider their future professional role and responsibilities more broadly in ways that can have meaningful effects on business, public services and wider societal concerns. The range of thought provoking and challenging student projects we set each year directly address the goals of the RSA while commenting on the changing role of the designer in relation to society, technology and culture.  Through this competition the RSA aims to enthuse and motivate young designers to explore the new ground design is now occupying and to provide ever more exciting opportunities to reward the most innovative and creative responses. Today marks the final day of judging this years shortlisted entries and we will be announcing our winners for 2012 in the coming weeks.

Watch this space!