TasCOS S Tasmanian Council of Social Service
Newsletter
April 2014
New government, new agenda
Community sector’s crucial involvement, p 4 Human Services Minister outlines approach, p 6 Intergenerational disadvantage, p 8
The power of Collective Impact, p 10
TasCOSS News April 2014
Save the date: TasCOSS 2014 conference
Contents 3
The next TasCOSS state conference will be held on 13-14 November 2014 in Hobart. We have chosen the theme “Navigating a changing environment”.
From the CEO
4 New State Government
6 Minister outlines approach
8 Deconstructing persistent disadvantage
10 Collective Impact: tackling the big issues
12 TasCOSS Achieving Outcomes project
13 Principles of sound outcomes measurement
14 SROI reporting pros and cons
17 TML social determinants of health projects
18 Welcome to new members
Advertising and insert rates 2014 Advertising (exc GST) Members
Non Members
Full
$70
$110
Half
$40
$70
Quarter $25
$40
Inserts (exc GST) Members
Non Members
$85
2
$130
Editor: Gabrielle Rish gabrielle@tascoss.org.au Phone: (03) 6231 0755
Save the date and stay tuned for more details soon via the TasCOSS e-news and website, www.tascoss.org.au
New members of our social policy and research team TasCOSS welcomes Marguerite Grieve to its Social Policy and Research team and welcomes back Pauline Marsh, who last worked at TasCOSS five years ago. The pair will fill in for senior policy and research officer Kath McLean while she is on longservice leave. Marguerite, who works for the Tasmanian Association of Community Houses, will handle Kath’s energy policy work. Pauline, who was recently with Shelter Tasmania, will be responsible for Kath’s other policy areas. Also, bringing her considerable research expertise to TasCOSS for one day a week will be Jo Flanagan, late of Anglicare’s Social Action and Research Centre. Jo will continue her work with DHHS Population Health.
Pauline Marsh
Marguerite Grieve
National energy-efficiency project
A national project has been set
up to share energy-saving ideas within the community sector.
The Give Grid project came about as a result of a sectorwide survey ACOSS undertook in September 2013. In response to the survey, 70% of community organisations told ACOSS they want to undertake an energyefficiency audit to help them cut costs but that the cost of external expertise was a barrier. The Give Grid will be an online hub for sharing and supporting good energy stories as we tackle the topic of energy efficiency together.
Andrea Pape The Give Grid project manager, ACOSS
As part of the project, TasCOSS is teaming up with ACOSS to offer a free energy-efficiency workshop in Hobart on Friday 27 June, 9am-5pm, at the Baha’i Centre of Learning. Register online and find out more about The Give Grid at thegivegrid.org
From the CEO
While Tasmania has a new state government, it is decisions in Canberra that loom large over the community sector at this time
F
ollowing a high-profile state election campaign on behalf of the community sector, TasCOSS is now establishing its relationship with the new State Government. The appointment of Jacquie Petrusma as Human Services Minister is welcome. In her role as Opposition spokesperson she developed a deep knowledge of and empathy for the sector and the people it supports. Our work with the new Minister is already under way. It was also a welcome sign that newly-elected Premier Will Hodgman held a meeting with community sector peak bodies and other community sector leaders on the Thursday following election day. At the meeting, also attended by deputy leader Jeremy Rockliff and Treasurer-designate Peter Gutwein, Mr Hodgman reaffirmed the commitment of the incoming government to all of its promises to the community sector – a commitment he said was unequivocal. Elsewhere in this newsletter, there are articles spelling out the policy commitments of the new Government and highlighting the challenges it faces in balancing its budget priorities with the urgent attention needed in areas such as education, employment, affordable housing and the cost of essential services. TasCOSS now moves into the next phase of our state election advocacy – working with the Hodgman Government and its new advisers towards the implementation of key decisions to improve the lives of low-income and disadvantaged Tasmanians, and to provide sustainable
resourcing to the community sector organisations that support those most in need. It is our mission to ensure that we keep crucial community issues such as cost of living at the forefront of government decision-making, and that when the state’s economy improves and expands there will be opportunity created for all Tasmanians. Treasurer Peter Gutwein’s first State Budget, now delayed until August, is highly anticipated.
Meanwhile in Canberra
The Abbott Government’s first six months in office has been a challenging and often confusing time for the community sector and its clients. While the results of the West Australian Senate election re-run are not finalised as I write, it is clear that the Coalition Government will still lack a majority in the Senate after 1 July. This places a question mark over a number of the Federal Government’s election commitments that rely on the passage of reforming legislation. The community and business sectors also await the findings of the national committee tasked with “auditing” the Federal Government’s finances and making recommendations, with the Government’s reaction to those findings of crucial importance. During this uncertain period, the nation’s Councils of Social Service, through the leadership of ACOSS, have emphasised that it is revenue that remains
the biggest challenge for the Government, not simply cutting spending to bring the national accounts into balance. ACOSS CEO Cassandra Goldie has advised that the current financial circumstances warrant a national discussion on what services government needs to provide in the coming years and how we can fairly structure public revenues to fund those services. There is a danger that true tax reform will be overlooked in a narrow and undoubtedly divisive debate on whether or not to raise the Good and Services Tax (GST) – a debate that won’t take into account the need to close tax avoidance arrangements. Cassandra recently told ABC Radio that “there are two core principles when it comes to taxation: that tax should be based on people’s ability to pay and that those at the bottom of the income ladder should not bear the burden of balancing the budget, whether through spending cuts or higher taxes”. These are important principles for what must be a wide-ranging national discussion on tax, revenue and government services – a discussion in which the community participates. As stressed by ACOSS, there is no doubt that public revenue will have to be restored if governments are to have any prospect of meeting the community’s basic needs for essential services such as health care and affordable housing, and provide a decent social security safety net.
Tony Reidy TasCOSS Chief Executive
3
New policy directions
The community sector hopes to be a respected partner in the plans of the Hodgman State Government
TasCOSS has begun talking with
the community sector about the election commitments made by the new Liberal State Government to better understand the impact these will have on the sector and the communities it supports. TasCOSS regional consultative forums were held around the state in early April. What we heard was that while the community sector is pleased the Liberals have made funding commitments to many programs, organisations and issue areas, there is circumspection over the implementation of these commitments and concerns that some critical areas, such as domestic violence and problem gambling, did not feature. On a general note, TasCOSS discussion with the community sector highlights concern that the Liberals have yet to articulate an overarching strategy or vision in their approach to social policy in Tasmania. The focus appears to be on individual rather than community empowerment and development and, in some cases, such as the abolition of suspended sentences, seems to be counter to available evidence. In the absence of the Tasmania Together framework or a social inclusion agenda championed by a Social Inclusion Commissioner, it is timely for the new Government to consider how it will develop a strategic and integrated approach to both social and economic success for the state.
4
TasCOSS and the sector look forward to discussion with the Government on developing a shared strategy for progressing
social policy in conjunction with the focus given to economic development.
further layers of bureaucracy and making it harder to access help.
Service delivery model
• The vital importance of adequate funding for the implementation of any new model.
On 20 February, then Opposition spokesperson Jacquie Petrusma announced the Liberals’ intention to introduce a new model of human services delivery in Tasmania. While detail is limited as yet, it is TasCOSS’s understanding that the new model would involved a single shared entry and assessment point for both government and community delivered services and a lead worker for complex cases to coordinate services. The model is similar to that being implemented in Victoria based on the Service Sector Reform report (July 2013) prepared by Professor Peter Shergold.
• How will the existing single points of entry – the Disability and Family Support Gateways, and Housing Connect – fit with the new model? • What risk does this kind of model pose to diversity in the sector? Will it inevitably favour large organisations over smaller or specialist organisations? • This kind of model will be impossible to effectively implement without a significant investment in an underpinning database and informationsharing platform.
Employment policy
Ms Petrusma has also linked the proposed model to the outcomes-based focus that is being introduced in DHHS contracts with community service providers.
Employment was the headline item during the election campaign and the Liberals have stated a clear target for their first term of government – to reduce Tasmania’s unemployment rate to at least the national average.
In early discussions with the community sector, TasCOSS has noted a strong desire for there to be an extensive consultation process prior to the development of a new centralised model for all human services.
Commitments made in relation to employment include the creation of 348 new frontline jobs, while also reducing the public sector by 500 positions over a two-year period.
We suggest that a strategic approach is required to clarify exactly what issues exist in the current system that need to be addressed, the principles or theory that will underpin a new model and a collaborative approach to its development and implementation. Cautionary messages from the sector on the proposed model included: • The need to avoid adding
A focus on youth employment was evident in funding commitments to Whitelion for a threeyear Youth Employment Partnership aimed at assisting 200 at-risk young people, and also in the financial support promised for the U Turn and TOOL programs. Social and economic success are closely linked in Tasmania and employment growth cannot be pursued in isolation. While economic growth and industry development is required
TasCOSS News April 2014
to furnish appropriate and stable employment, individual and community support and development are needed for there to be a suitably skilled and capable workforce. Successful social policy is essential for improving employment outcomes in Tasmania. We need a workforce that, at a minimum, is adequately housed, well educated, has access to transport and enjoys good health.
Education
Education was another issue highlighted in the TasCOSS election campaign for the community sector for which the Liberals have set a target. The target is to bring Tasmania to or above the national standard in every NAPLAN measurement and meet national benchmarks in reading, writing, maths and science by the end of six years of government. Literacy and numeracy results are important, but they are best achieved in a broader context of educational engagement, retention, support in schools and building a culture of education in the state. These issues are partially addressed in Liberals commitments such as appointing child and adolescent health nurses in schools, a partnership with Beacon Foundation to help 1500 students stay in education or gain employment and the review of education for students with a disability. TasCOSS and others will continue to lobby for a broad, community-wide campaign promoting engagement with education, and for an increase in support within schools to address disengagement.
Housing
Tasmania has a lack of affordable, appropriate housing. The impact on the lives of those who do not have appropriate and affordable housing is immense and permeates all aspects of their lives; it affects educational outcomes and employment, health status, and contributes
Community sector representatives at the TasCOSS election campaign launch in February.
Community sector’s united election campaign The community sector presented a united front for the 2014 state election campaign. At a campaign launch on 12 February, TasCOSS and 11 sector organisations called on all parties and candidates to make commitments on key social policy issues affecting Tasmania. The priority issues in the community sector campaign – including employment, education, affordable housing, affordable essentials and an effective community sector – were detailed in the TasCOSS Call to the Parties document. These priority issues, and the commitments called for under them, were arrived at after a series of consultations in the latter part of 2013. Consultation included forums held
significantly to entrenched poverty. This is a very challenging area of social policy in which there are no quick or easy solutions. TasCOSS welcomes the funding committed to develop a State Policy on Affordable Housing, which is an important foundational step to encourage the supply of new affordable dwellings. Also positive is the intention to reexamine the benefits that would
in each region of the state, discussions with the community sector peak bodies and a general invitation issued to all TasCOSS stakeholders to provide input to help shape the election messages. The vigorous community sector campaign achieved a very visible presence in the media and an impressive list of commitments from all parties on social policy issues of vital importance to Tasmania. Having formed relationships with, and been well briefed by the sector during their time in opposition, the Liberals made policy and funding commitments across a wide range of areas. TasCOSS welcomes Jacquie Petrusma as the new Minister for Human Services.
come from the transfer of title to community housing providers and the commitment to seek a longer repayment term for the Housing Tasmania debt to the Commonwealth Government. Both provide opportunities for growth in affordable housing. The TasCOSS Call to Parties sought an expansion of the Homeshare and Streets Ahead programs to help more low to middle-income earners into home ownership, so it was pleasing that the Liberals committed
cont: page 6
5
Minister outlines approach
New Human Services Minister Jacquie Petrusma took time out from the hectic first days in her new role to answers some questions from TasCOSS
F
irstly I would like to say how delighted I am to be taking up the Human Services portfolio and continuing my work with the community sector as Minister. As a new government, we have set down an agenda for longterm and significant reform in the way we support vulnerable Tasmanians – one that provides joined-up support to clients and communities, and delivers improved integration between services. However, the Government alone cannot achieve this reform. This is a collective effort, and we will all need to work constructively together to achieve it. The first step is consultation with
from page 5
to a review and overhaul of the Homeshare scheme with this same aim in mind. One area of concern raised in consultations with the community sector was the intention of the Liberal Government to introduce a three-strikes eviction policy to manage anti-social behaviour in public housing. While acknowledging that anti-social behaviour in public housing is not acceptable, TasCOSS is also concerned that this punitive approach will result in people being evicted into homelessness – a situation that is likely to cause more problems than it solves.
Cost of living
6
Cost of living remains high on the list of concerns for Tasmanians on low incomes and experiencing disadvantage. The new Government’s commitment to investigate the option of further bill smoothing for car registration costs is a very positive move.
the community sector and to develop a shared vision of what we want to achieve, and the steps we need to take to move towards new client-centred approaches, as well as simplifying an increasingly complex system for our clients to navigate. Any transition will be carefully considered and will be a long-term undertaking.
Q. How important is it to maintain the current diversity of community service providers in Tasmania?
Another of my priorities as Minister is to further ease the burden of compliance and reporting that takes your resources away from service delivery and clients.
As long as these services are delivered by financially viable and sustainable organisations, that have strong governance and deliver services that are of high quality and can achieve the desired outcomes, a diverse community sector can be supported and maintained.
I have the highest regard for the community sector and its professionalism, and look forward to working with the sector on our exciting and challenging plans. Members advise TasCOSS that NILS (no interest) loans for the purposes of paying car registration are common, and if there is an option for registration costs to be paid in monthly instalments this may well free up NILS loans for other purposes. The Liberals have also expressed their ongoing commitment to funding the NILS scheme, including the Energy Efficient Appliances Program. TasCOSS was disappointed, however, to note that the Liberals have not made any commitments to continue funding the energy-efficiency retro-fitting and education programs for low-income households. These programs have proved very successful in reducing energy use and saving money on energy bills that many on low incomes find to be one of the greatest cost of living pressures.
A diverse community sector is one that is best placed to deliver the broad range of services that Tasmanians need to access, while having the ability to be responsive and engage with clients and community.
As Peter Shergold stated in May TasCOSS and others in the sector will continue to lobby for the continuation of these valuable programs and on the issue of electricity disconnections. The first 100 days in Government will set the scene for the Liberals’ first term and provide further insight into their priorities and intentions. TasCOSS also looks ahead to the State Budget, delayed until August, for a tangible demonstration that the Liberals will deliver on the promises they have made to the Tasmanian community. The Budget will be an opportunity for the new Government to show how responsive they are to advice and consultation in the early months of their first term of Government.
Meg Webb Manager, TasCOSS Social Policy and Research
7
He said “this may mean that the best outcomes can be achieved by a mix of larger providers who enjoy the advantages of scale and operate as well administered businesses, single organisations delivering a standard state-wide service and then smaller more agile and innovative organisations who might be able to deliver specialised programs at the local level”. Q. If you see a role for smaller specialised services, how can you ensure that service provision doesn’t end up going to the organisations big enough to provide the “triage” single point of entry for people in need of services? Smaller specialised services have a very important role in a diverse service system. Increasingly, collaborative service models are emerging around the country that feature a lead agency, with partnership arrangements that involve smaller specialist providers. In Tasmania, we have two very good examples of this in the Family Support and Disability Services Gateways and more recently Housing Connect. The question is not so much whether smaller specialist services will exist but how large and small organisations, the government and the community sector work together in an integrated and collaborative way to deliver holistic support to our clients. Q. How can you minimise the threat to the role and financial sustainability of CSOs – and to inefficiencies such as competition rather than collaboration between services – under the individualised funding model? One important way that the Liberal Government is contributing to the financial sustainability of CSO’s is through our election commitment to provide an additional $9 million over the
forward estimates period to increase the rate of indexation.
TasCOSS News April 2014
2013, the best way to deliver public benefit will determine the make-up of the community sector.
In respect of disability reform and individualised funding models, while government plays an important role in providing funding and indexation, it is equally important for organisations to make strategic decisions on how they position themselves in a system where individuals have greater choice and control over their provider. Q. You often mention your background in aged care and also having been a single mother – how have these experiences shaped your philosophy towards the delivery of community services and also social justice? Growing up, I watched my own amazing mother struggle as a single mother of four kids and I was determined that I would not do the same. When I too became a single mother, I was lucky to have the support of my mother and grandmother who not only gave me a roof over my head, but looked after my daughter while I did nursing, and then later University, so that I could get a good job. What I learned from my own experience are two things: that at some point in our lives, many of us will need help and support – a hand up; and that education and a job can lift people out of disadvantage for a lifetime. The two are very much inter-related. I passionately believe in our collective ability to make a difference in the lives of those who are disadvantaged, but over the last four years I have been asking myself whether we are providing help in the right way and how we can work together more collaboratively, with a shared agenda, to make a difference. My work in aged care made me critically aware of the perils of red tape and over-regulation, and how simplifying procedures can result in greater service delivery and better outcomes for staff and for clients.
Jacquie Petrusma takes notes at the community sector state election forum on 20 February 2014.
Jacquie Petrusma Minister for Human Services
7
Deconstructing persistent disadvantage The transmission of poverty across generations must be addressed if Tasmania is to achieve its full potential
Here’s a statistic that may sur-
prise you: between 2001 and 2010, just under 40% of Australians experienced income poverty -- that is to say, they had an income less than half the Australian median income at the time.1
It’s an eye-popping figure, but one that becomes a bit less alarming when you consider that it includes students, people taking time off work, people working part-time by choice and other groups whose personal or family wealth protects them from the worst aspects of a low-income life, and who are unlikely to remain poor for long. This statistic -- and what it doesn’t tell -- highlights two points. First, income alone is an inadequate measure of overall financial wellbeing. On the one hand, income doesn’t capture access to wealth and other resources like houses, bank accounts or other crucial assets like a car. And on the other hand, a stint on a decent income doesn’t in itself ensure that a person or family can accumulate wealth or assets that will carry them through if that income falls off. Second, for most Australians, income poverty is a temporary condition. Around the same number of Australians exit income poverty in any year as enter; and if 2001-2010 figures are any indication, less than 5% of the Australian population has been in poverty nine years or more.2 What applies to most Australians, however, doesn’t apply to all -- and particularly not to those already poorly off.
8
Of Australians already in poverty in 2001, 40.2% were still in poverty nine years later.3 In fact, over the last decade or so, for those in the lowest two income quintiles, flat or downward economic mobility has been the norm. Nearly half of those in the lowest income quintile in 2001 were still there in 2010 and 55% of those in the second quintile in 2001 were either still there in 2010 or had dropped to the lowest quintile.4 Long-term income poverty like this is more and more likely to be associated with broader disadvantage -- not just a lack of income and wealth but the reduced physical and mental well-being, unstable housing and lack of social and political participation associated with social exclusion. This broader socio-economic disadvantage is considerably more persistent from one year to the next than income poverty.5 In this situation, the key concern becomes that of “impoverished lives” as a whole, not just “depleted wallets”.6 What is especially worrying is that many of those affected by longterm disadvantage are children. Many children not only experience poverty during their childhoods but also enter their young adult years, when they are most likely to begin considering their employment future, facing a number of disadvantages. Their families may not have the assets to start them off -- a car to get to those first job interviews, for example -- or to help them through tough times in their early years on the job market. These young people may already be facing challenges
such as low levels of education, poor mental or physical health and caring responsibilities that make looking for, finding and holding down a well-paid job more difficult. And they may face stigma, based on where they come from or what school they’ve attended, that makes it hard for them to break into the job market.
The key concern becomes that of impoverished lives as a whole, not just depleted wallets In such situations, entire families may end up in a situation of intergenerational disadvantage -- a situation where two or more generations of the same family experience high and persisting levels of income poverty, lack of personal and material resources such as education and wealth, and restricted opportunities and expectations.7 Intergenerational disadvantage is:
Difficult to measure
At TasCOSS, we’ve found it hard to estimate existing levels of intergenerational disadvantage in Tasmania; the most current statistics that exist usually appear to capture only small aspects of the broader problem or its risk factors.
Difficult to predict
Children growing up in singleparent families, in families where neither parent is working, or in families whose income stems mainly from social welfare benefits appear to be at greater risk
TasCOSS News April 2014
but the exact level of risk does not appear to be clear.
Difficult to combat
The compounding effects of low income and wealth, low educational attainment and aspirations, low levels of training and job experience, poor mental and physical health, and lack of support and resources are hard to pick apart. Furthermore, these issues can’t be considered in isolation from the effects of economic restructuring, poor labour markets, struggling school and health systems, and all the other social, economic and institutional factors that enable poverty and disadvantage to persist across generations.8 All these difficulties notwithstanding, intergenerational disadvantage is the seemingly intractable problem that must be comprehensively addressed and eventually solved if Tasmania is to achieve its full potential as a socially and economically vibrant and fair society. These kinds of large-scale social problems are only likely to yield to a collective approach: see the box on the Harlem Children’s Zone (page 11) that makes up part of our discussion of the Collective Impact model. TasCOSS wants to start a conversation with you, our readers and members, as well as the community at large around this complex problem. Some of the questions we’d like to address are: • What do we know about intergenerational disadvantage in Tasmania? 1 Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, 2013, Families, Incomes and Jobs, vol. 8, Melbourne, p. 25 http://www. melbourneinstitute.com/downloads/ hilda/Stat_Report/statreport-v8-2013. pdf 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid., p. 26 4 Ibid., p. 18 5 Ibid., p. 70 6 McLachlan R, Gilfillan G, Gordon J (2013) Deep and persistent
Intergenerational poverty starts children off with a whole set of disadvantages.
• How do the risk factors and/ or drivers of intergenerational disadvantage interact? • What sort of new or additional information should we be capturing to measure and track intergenerational disadvantage? • How can the whole Tasmanian community work together disadvantage in Australia. Productivity Commission Staff Working Paper 7 Hancock K, Edwards B, Zubrick S (2012) Echoes of disadvantage across the generations? LSAC Annual Statistical Report 2012, p. 43 8 Bird K and Higgins K (2011) Stopping the intergenerational transmission of poverty: research highlights and policy recommendations. Chronic Poverty Research Centre, Working Paper 214.
to begin to attack intergenerational disadvantage? We intend to make the topic of intergenerational disadvantage a regular theme in upcoming newsletters. What aspect of this topic do you feel we should discuss next? Would you be interested in writing something for us? Contact Wynne Russell at wynne@ tascoss.org.au with all your thoughts!
Wynne Russell TasCOSS Social Policy and Research Unit
9
Tackling the big issues
Collective Impact is a best-practice approach to working together for large-scale social change
W
e often work on our own but many problems are just too big for that. Some problems seem just too deeply entrenched and complex to solve on our own. We all know these kinds of issues. For example, think about the challenge of improving Tasmania’s low literacy and numeracy rates, or levels of educational retention and attainment; of reducing carbon emissions, or obesity levels. Or think about tackling intergenerational poverty and disadvantage.
1 Kania J and Kramer M (2011), Collective Impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review. http:// www.ssireview. org/articles/entry/ collective_impact
Such problems can’t be effectively solved by programs, services, organisations or businesses working in isolation – and often in competition. They require purposeful, wellorganised, long-term collaboration – an approach that
has been dubbed Collective Impact. Few people in the Tasmanian community services sector would be shocked by the idea that finding and implementing solutions to complex social problems can’t be done alone. Australia has a long history of co-operative efforts to tackle ‘wicked’ social problems. Some of these have experienced great success. Many others, however, have failed. This is hardly surprising: after all, it’s not easy to get a wide range of players with widely differing missions, programs, funding and even basic values to work together effectively over the long run. A growing number of examples such as the Harlem Children’s Zone exist, however, where collaborations have produced
Isolated Impact vs Collective Impact Isolated Impact • Funders select individual grantees that offer the most promising solutions. • Non-profits work separately and compete to produce the greatest independent impact. • Evaluation attempts to isolate a particular organisation’s impact. • Large-scale change is assumed to depend on scaling a single organisation. • Corporate and government sectors are often disconnected from the efforts of foundations and non-profits.
10
Collective Impact • Funders and implementers understand that social problems, and their solutions, arise from the interaction of many organisations within a larger system. • Progress depends on working toward the same goal and measuring the same things. • Large-scale impact depends on increasing cross-sector alignment and learning among many organisations. • Corporate and government sectors are essential partners. • Organisations actively coordinate their action and share lessons learned.
Source: Hanleybrown F, Kania J and Kramer M (2012), “Channeling change: making collective impact work.” Stanford Social Innovation Review. http://www.fsg.org/ tabid/191/ArticleId/561/Default.aspx?srpush=true
meaningful change. From these, a body of knowledge is emerging about what it takes for a diverse range of government and non-government organisations, businesses, groups and individuals to work together effectively. Mindsets, skills and essential elements for success are being identified, trained for and refined. While there is an extensive field of research and practice around collaboration, the work that has captured world-wide attention recently is that of John Kania and Mark Kramer, who in 2011 wrote an article for the Stanford Social Innovation Review entitled “Collective Impact”.1 Bolstering their case with a raft of success stories, they offer a persuasive argument for why complex social problems are best tackled through a collective approach. Equally importantly, through analysis of these and other case studies, they have identified some basic elements that, taken together, increase the chances of collective efforts achieving success. These are:
1. A common agenda
All participants must have a shared vision for change, including a common understanding of the problem and a joint approach to solving it through agreed-upon actions. This sounds simple but, in fact, reaching a common agenda can require a detailed exploration of the values and expectations of different partners around a problem.
2. Shared measurement systems
All participating services and
3. Mutually reinforcing activities
Participant activities can be very different, but they must still be coordinated through a mutually reinforcing plan of action.
4. Continuous communication
Consistent and open communication is needed across the many players to build trust and make sure that everyone remains on the same page.
5. Backbone support organisations
Collective impact projects benefit strongly in their creation and ongoing management from the presence of dedicated staff serving the entire initiative and coordinating participating organisations and agencies.
Governance
Studies of such collaborations indicate that a key element of success is the development of an effective system of collective governance -- a collective approach to the way in which decisions are framed, made and implemented. Collective governance requires that participants work together at all stages to co-define the problem; co-design the process; co-develop the solution; and co-deliver actions. Such collaboration builds mutual trust, commitment and shared understanding, and fosters the innovation and ownership needed to resolve complex challenges. The Collective Impact approach is neither quick nor easy. Projects often take many months simply to identify a common agenda.
Collective Impact case study: Harlem Children’s Zone New York’s Harlem is a community full of poverty, crime and hopelessness. Only the most fortunate children manage to escape the poverty cycle. The Harlem Children’s Zone is transforming the lives of children and families within its reach. Centred around strong schools, it wraps children in high-quality, coordinated health, social, community and educational support from the cradle to college to career. Young people are now achieving similar or better results than middle-class communities. All the HCZ programs are focused on giving children the skills and support they need to succeed in school and graduate from college. Since the late 1990s the organisation has developed a comprehensive network of services that
The Harlem Children’s Zone (see case study above) advises that truly significant results require a 10-year commitment. Participants, and funders, have to be prepared to commit themselves for the long term, including across political cycles. And all collaborators have to be prepared to cultivate a collaborative mindset – to shift away from the normal reaction of looking after your own organisation first to looking at how the whole system operates. Despite these challenges, Tasmania seems well-suited to Collective Impact-style collaborative projects. We have a resourceful, closely connected community, a ded-
provides the precinct’s 11,300 children and their families with a seamless series of free, coordinated, best-practice programs. They focus on the needs of children at every developmental stage with specific programs addressing pre-natal care, infants, toddlers, elementary school, middle school, adolescents, and college. Services are complemented with initiatives to build community amongst residents, institutions and stakeholders.
TasCOSS News April 2014
organisations need to have a consistent approach to collecting data and measuring results. This ensures that efforts remain aligned and participants hold each other accountable.
HCZ has aligned previously disconnected services operating within its pocket of New York. Its success led the Obama administration to begin the Promise Neighborhoods program in 2010 that now supports over 50 impoverished communities across the US to build integrated supports for their children.
icated community sector and decision-makers who are easy to access. Because we are a small state, our problems are a bit more manageable in scope. And our tight funding pool means that we have to work efficiently, and leverage our individual contributions, if we are to begin to address some of our state’s most complex and persistent issues. We will write more on collective governance and the characteristics of a backbone organisation in future issues of the TasCOSS newsletter. Tim Tabart and Wynne Russell attended the Collective Impact 2014 conference in Sydney on 25-26 February.
Tim Tabart
Wynne Russell
TasCOSS Sector Development Unit
TasCOSS Social Policy and Research Unit
11
Achieving better outcomes
TasCOSS is offering support and inspiration for the task of outcomes measurement by community service organisations
Outcomes measurement is a
current hot topic of conversation and activity in the state and federal government spheres and social services. TasCOSS is engaged with this issue through its Achieving Outcomes project. The coming months will see much TasCOSS activity centred on outcomes: outcomes measurement training, ongoing involvement with the DHHS Outcomes Purchasing Framework and a Collective Impact forum looking at working collaboratively to achieve outcomes. The state Department of Health and Human Services has been developing an Outcomes Purchasing Framework for community services which will be an important factor shaping the relationship of the sector with DHHS into the future. The federal Department of Social Services is also working on an approach to outcomes accountability. A draft of the DHHS Framework was circulated to all DHHS-funded CSOs in late March. Importantly, the Framework emphasises a partnership approach between DHHS and the sector and promotes a culture of shared accountability for the achievement of outcomes. The Framework will be implemented over the course of the next few years, as funding agreements come up for renewal. This will involve CSOs and other stakeholders engaging with the Department on the outcomes their funding aims to achieve and the indicators to measure progress.
12
TasCOSS and the Alcohol Tobacco and other Drugs Council have represented the sector on
A full house for the TasCOSS Measuring Outcomes seminar in November 2013.
a DHHS working group developing the Framework. While TasCOSS argues that social services should primarily be measuring outcomes for their own purposes, to ensure they are being effective in helping their consumers, the government activity around outcomes means all organisations will have to address this issue. In this context, TasCOSS has engaged Les Hems and Rebecca Cain from national sustainability consultancy Net Balance to deliver a one-day Outcomes Measurement Workshop in Burnie, Launceston and Hobart from May 19-21. (see Rebecca Cain’s article on page13) TasCOSS will also present a oneday Collective Impact forum in Hobart on Friday 6 June, seizing the opportunity of two experts on the subject being in the state.
ing with a range of business, community and government organisations to bring the pair to Hobart for the Collective Impact forum. Dr McAfee is director of the national US program Promise Neighborhoods, set up to spread the success of the Harlem Children’s Zone across the US. (See the case study on the Children’s Zone in the Collective Impact article on page 11) Measuring outcomes is central to Collective Impact work and Dr McAfee is passionate about how being accountable for outcomes makes a difference to real people in communities. For more information about TasCOSS Achieving Outcomes activities, see the TasCOSS website, www.tascoss.org.au, or contact Tim Tabart on (03) 6231 0755, tim@tascoss.org.au
Dawn O’Neill and Michael McAfee will be speaking at Anglicare’s Children and Families conference in Launceston on 4-5 June. TasCOSS is partnerTim Tabart TasCOSS Sector Development Unit
Principles of sound outcomes measurement Addressing key considerations is more important than the particular measurement methodology you adopt
In the Social Impact team at
Net Batance, we are often asked the question “Which impact measurement methodology should we use?”. Not all organisations need to or have the resources to adhere to a particular measurement methodology, but all organisations should be measuring outcomes. If you’re not measuring outcomes, how else will you know whether your activities and programs are actually creating value for your stakeholders and what you could be doing better? What if we told you that you don’t need to ‘back a particular horse’? That you can draw on the strengths of a range of methodologies and still be able to measure outcomes in a way that is both meaningful and manageable for your organisation. There are some principles of sound outcomes measurement that should be a feature of any approach to measuring the difference that your activities make. Regardless of whether you follow a particular methodology or which methodology you follow, these principles will steer you in the right direction.
Involve your stakeholders
Stakeholders are the people or organisations that have experienced change as a result of your activities. Because they are the ones who have experienced the change, they are best placed to describe it. If you don’t involve your stakeholders, your measurement is nothing more than a theoretical exercise. Only by involving your stakeholders, can you and your audience be confident that what you come up with repre-
Inputs What resources will be mobilised to accomplish project goals?
Activities What actions will be undertaken in pursuit of project goals?
sents what actually happened and what matters to your stakeholders.
Measure change
While many funders won’t expect organisations, particularly small ones, to be collecting detailed or quantitative outcomes data on an ongoing basis, they do expect that organisations will understand and be able to evidence their theory of change to show how investment links to results. The theory of change is often represented visually as a map or diagram illustrating a logical flow through the program inputs such as financial investment and resources; the activities undertaken to deliver the program; the outputs of these activities; and the intended or actual outcomes for stakeholders in the short, medium and longer term. It is a dynamic representation of the cause-and-effect relationship between what you do and the changes that occur for your stakeholders. The theory of change is also the place to document assumptions about how the program will work and external factors that interact with and influence the program.
Understand the ‘added value’ your activities create
Do you understand what would
Outputs What will be produced through these activities?
Outcomes What long-term results will be achieved as a result of this project?
have happened anyway for your stakeholders if they weren’t involved with your organisation? What about your contribution to your stakeholders’ experience versus that of other actors involved? Being able to answer these questions is important for reporting but even more critical to inform your own program design and decision making to ensure that you create maximum value. The concept of ‘impact’ is one of the strengths of the Social Return on Investment methodology. Even if you’re not doing a full SROI you should still have an understanding of impact. In SROI, impact refers to the additional value that you have created after taking account of: • Dead weight: what would have happened for your stakeholders even if your activities had not taken place? • Attribution: how much of what happened was caused by the contribution of other organisations or people? • Displacement: how much of what happened has been moved from somewhere/one else? If you don’t understand impact, you run the risk of overclaiming the change that results from
cont: page 14
13
Social Return on Investment reporting SROI is a relatively new form of outcomes measurement with some teething troubles
T
he requirement to provide a Social Return on Investment (SROI) report to the State Government may be the next ‘development’ for the Tasmanian community housing sector. Before you hire the mellifluous consultant, take a few minutes to consider what it is you are buying, what it costs and if you really need it. SROI has been defined in a number of different ways; however all the definitions share similar points of departure. SROI is generally recognised as a form of stakeholder-driven evaluation blended with costbenefit analysis tailored to social purposes. It tells the story of how social change is created, places a monetary value on that change and compares it with the costs of inputs required to achieve it, according to Social Venture Australia1. The measurement of SROI usually starts from the perspective of the stakeholders.
from page 13
your activities, which could be damaging to the credibility of your organisation. Particularly in the future, with the increasing reliance on payment by results/outcomes approaches, being able to state the change that you create will be vital to the financial viability of your organisation.
14
There will be instances where it is necessary or sensible to follow a particular methodology. It may be that a financial supporter has requested that a financial valuation be undertaken, which will require the use of the SROI methodology. Or it may be a requirement of government funding that Results
There are seven principles that guide SROI, according to A Guide to Social Return on Investment2 . These include:
Strengths of SROI
1. Involve stakeholders (ie everyone who has a ‘stake’ or an interest in the subject of the SROI).
• Facilitating strategic discussions and helping an organisation to understand and maximise the social value an activity creates.
2. Understand what changes (for the stakeholders). 3. Value what matters (also known as the ‘monetisation principle’). 4. Only include what is material. 5. Do not over-claim. 6. Be transparent. 7. Verify the results.
According to Social Return on Investment guide, SROI can improve services by:
• Helping an organisation to target appropriate resources at managing unexpected outcomes, both positive and negative. • Demonstrating the importance of working with other organisations and people that have a contribution to make in creating change.
There are also two types of SROI: the evaluative type, which is conducted retrospectively and based on actual outcomes that have already taken place; and the forecast type, which predicts how much social value will be created if the activities meet their intended outcomes.
• Identifying common ground between what an organisation wants to achieve and what its stakeholders want to achieve, helping to maximise social value.
Based Accountability is used for reporting and acquittals.
Net Balance is one of Australia’s largest providers of sustainability advice, assurance and research. The Net Balance Foundation is a parallel not-for-profit that draws on the talents of staff to provide affordable services to not-for-profit organisations and bring the firm’s thought leadership to life through research, events and training.
Adopting a single approach across an organisation can create efficiencies and a consistent standard of quality, particularly in larger organisations where measurement is being undertaken by different people. But this approach need not be an off-the-shelf methodology. An approach that draws on the principles of sound outcomes measurement may be the most appropriate and feasible approach.
• Creating a formal dialogue with stakeholders that enables them to hold the service to account and involves them meaningfully in service design.
Rebecca Cain Net Balance team leader, Social Impact
TasCOSS News April 2014
Rauscher, Schober and Millner3 argue that SROI analyses offer benefits and opportunities for the activities of non-profit organisations. One benefit is the identification of social impacts that are significant for society. This aspect is often neglected when conventional impact measurement indicators are used. Often, the non-profit sector is also implicitly treated as a mere cost factor. SROI analyses can counter this by making the benefit of projects accessible, as they use the widely accepted language of money. They also offer stringent dealing with effect chains in respect of individual stakeholder groups. The consistent focus on the social impact during the analysis provides a better understanding of the services that are efficient, and areas where changes are purposeful. This can result in learning effects that are essential for strategic management.
Limitations of SROI
In spite of the benefits that the method offers, the SROI analysis has certain limits and weaknesses. One weakness is the fact that analysts have to define a large number of standards within the framework of the analysis at their own discretion. This applies to both the measurement and the evaluation of impact. In order to be able to assess impacts that cannot be measured directly, auxiliary constructs (proxies) must be generated. A critical point is that proxy indicators are only one of normally several possible constructs for measurement. In principle, this criticism is also true for large areas of quantitative social research, where working with indicators is common practice. For SROI analyses, however, the number of identified key indicators is greater.
15
Endeavours to introduce some standardisation already exist but they are still in the developmental stage. At the same time,
SROI monetises conditions that are not of monetary value
there is some doubt that standardised indicators will fit or cover all social interventions. Another point of criticism refers to the monetisation of conditions that are not of monetary value. There is a lack of clear criteria on when alternative generation costs or achieved savings are to be used as the basis for the evaluation. If the evaluation is done using alternative generation costs, no standards on the amount to be defined for these costs are available. One distinguishing characteristic of reliable studies is that they indicate in a transparent and understandable manner which standards were applied and for what reasons. It is also difficult to include circumstances in the analysis that have been caused indirectly; the occurrence of which is not very likely; that occur with a long delay; that occur in an unspecific broad sphere of impact; and/ or that are difficult to monetise. As a result, SROI analyses vary in their degree of suitability for assessing the various social functions of NGOs (Neumayr 20104). For example, advocacy, social justice campaigns and social learning are difficult to assess, which is linked with the difficulty
of proving a direct causality of the interventions. The community-building function can only be assessed with certain restrictions, which are fulfilled within the framework of volunteering, whereas the service functions of NGOs can be assessed more easily.
Community housing case study
The use of SROI in community housing in Australia has been limited. There are two available case studies and in both cases SROI has been used to evaluate the benefits of community housing rather than make a forecast. The Victorian Women’s Housing Association engaged Social Venture Australia Consulting to examine the social return on two of its social housing developments established for women and their families either exiting prison or escaping from domestic violence. The VWHA was the first community/social housing organisation in Australia to use the SROI assessment of the explicit and implicit value of the housing. It was the first community housing developer to use borrowings to extend its ability to develop and build housing in the outer suburbs of Melbourne.
cont: page 16
15
TasCOSS News April 2014
The VWHA also set up a social investment fund for women and children to allow a sustainable resource pool for social housing construction and development which, in turn, reduced reliance on government funding5. The SROI analysis identified the following outcomes: • Improved feelings of stability, safety, comfort and happiness for all women after moving into the houses provided by VWHA. • Savings to government as a result of avoided costs of homelessness, corrections and decreased welfare expenditure. • Evidence that the housing project breaks the poverty cycle into the future. • The SROI report also found that VWHA’s affordable housing project delivers a social and economic return of $3.14 for every $1 invested in the program.6 According to the SROI guide, forecast SROIs are especially useful in the planning stages of an activity such as Better Housing Futures. They can help show how investment can maximise impacts and are also useful for identifying what should be measured once the project is up and running.
The guide also suggests that “it is often preferable to start using SROI by forecasting what the social value may be, rather than evaluating what it was, as this ensures that projects have the right data collection systems in place as the beginning of the project which will allow them to perform a full analysis in the future”. According to the guide, forecast SROIs are useful in the planning stages of an activity such as the transfer of public housing stock to non-government organisations. They can help show how local investment can maximise impacts and are also useful for identifying what should be measured once the housing program or project is up and running. Social Venture Australia suggests that SROI is not (yet) a comprehensive evaluation framework. At this stage, it cannot be used to compare performance between organisations. The SROI ratio can also be misused.
and further refinements to policy and practice made to enable the SROI approach to reach maturity. 1 Social Venture Australia (2010) http:// www.socialventures.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/SROI-LessonsLearned-Report-SVA-2012.pdf 2 A Guide to Social Return on Investment (2009) Society Media p. 9 3 Social Return on Investment Position Paper, New Philanthropy Capital (2010) 4 The SROI Network, http://www.thesroi-
network.org/what-is-sroi. 5 Neumayr, Michaela (2010): Resource dependence. Der Einfluss öffentlicher Finanzierungsformen auf die Funktionen von Nonprofit Organisationen in Österreich Wien/Vienna: Doctoral Thesis WU Wien. 6 Social Impact Measurement und Social
Return on Investment (SROI)-Analysis New methods of economic evaluation? Working Paper, Olivia Rauscher, Christian Schober and Reinhard Millner, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Vienna, June 2012. http:// www.siaassociation.org/wp-content/ uploads/2012/12/Social-Impact-Measurement-and-SROI_English_Version_final_2.pdf.
7 Social and economic outcomes for the disadvantaged. Beverley Kliger, Jeanette Large, Amanda Martin, Jane Standish, Victorian Women’s Housing Association, Victoria, Australia, Beverley Kliger & Associates, Victoria, Australia http://soac.fbe.unsw.edu.au/2011/papers/SOAC2011_0109_final(1).pdf
Overall, SROI is simply new and more capacity needs to be built, more experience acquired
Jed Donoghue and Yan Nee Ang Salvation Army Housing & Homeless Stream
Join us: become a TasCOSS member TasCOSS has been working as an advocate for low-income and otherwise disadvantaged Tasmanians since 1961. TasCOSS members, both organisational and individual, share and support our vision of a fair, just and inclusive Tasmania. Membership of TasCOSS starts from as little as $50 a year for organisations (depending on operating income) and is $57 a year for waged individuals ($15 concession or unwaged).
16
To find out more about TasCOSS membership visit www.tascoss. org.au, or call 6231 0755.
Social determinants of health projects TasCOSS is working with Tasmania Medicare Local to assist community-based initiatives to improve residents’ health outcomes
T
asmanians generally have poorer health outcomes and experience greater poverty and disadvantage than other Australians. Research has shown that the houses we live in, the transport we are able to access, the level of stress in our lives, the job we have or don’t have, the social support we have around us and how much money we’ve got have as much impact on our health and wellbeing as our genes and behaviours. These factors are some of what are termed the social determinants of health. Tasmania Medicare Local was established to help improve the statewide and regional health outcomes of Tasmanians. It aims to help better coordinate primary healthcare delivery and tackle healthcare needs and service gaps at the local level. All Tasmanians should be able to access the health care they need but there is also a need to make it less likely that they will need health care. Where and how we live our lives has an enormous impact on whether we stay well in the first place. The more we see the problems of health in this way, the more opportunities we have to improve it. TasCOSS and TML are now working together to identify ways in which TasCOSS can raise awareness and build sector capacity in responding to the social determinants of health. In conjunction with TML, TasCOSS is looking at how the training we offer, our extensive networks throughout the sector and other skills and resources might contribute to supporting or-
ganisations working to improve health outcomes for the Tasmanian community. The Tasmania Medicare Local is the only one to have received substantial, long-term Federal Government funding to manage a project addressing the social determinants of health. Tasmania Medicare Local conducted extensive statewide community and stakeholder consultation, and drew on national and international research to inform recommendations on the range of social determinants to be addressed and the type of activities that should be undertaken. As part of the resulting project strategy, TML invited local communities to put forward their ideas for tackling mainstream issues impacting on the health and wellbeing of their residents. Eighteen Tasmanian local government areas were identified as Communities of Priority, based on socio-economic status, remoteness and capacity to implement sustainable solutions as key determinants of health outcomes. They were: • Northern region – Break O’Day, Dorset, George Town, Glamorgan/Spring Bay, Launceston • North west region – Burnie, Devonport, Kentish, Waratah/ Wynyard, West Coast • Southern region – Brighton, Central Highlands, Derwent Valley, Glenorchy, Huon Valley, Sorell, Southern Midlands, Tasman.
Expressions of interest for projects closed on 31 March 2014. Successful communities will receive $50,000 in funding to develop their Social Determinants of Health proposals and are then eligible for a further $300,000 in funding for project implementation following an assessment of project plans. It is in these subsequent phases of the projects that TasCOSS sees opportunities to play a part. There has been a heavy emphasis on the need for collaboration between organisations in successful tenders. Collaboration between organisations has been part of government thinking, at all levels, for some time and continues to become more important in achieving desired outcomes and funding. Similarly, there has been a considerable amount of work done on the measurement of social outcomes which is integral to the success of these projects. Depending on the organisations and communities involved in the successful projects, these may be areas for particular attention. TasCOSS is already providing leadership and governance training relevant to the goal of increasing skills and capacity in community sector organisations. We continue to work with TML to identify practical ways in which we can continue to support the Social Determinants of Health Strategy.
Leigh Delaney Acting Manager, Sector Development
17
Welcome to our new members TasCOSS
has been strengthened by three new organisational members, with Unions Tasmania, the Community and Public Sector Union and the Tasmanian Men’s Shed Association all joining in recent months. The Tasmanian Men’s Shed Association was set up five years ago to be a peak for the now 43 men’s sheds around the state. “We provide guidance and support to sheds, with issues such as managing volunteers, ensuring sheds have the right insurance, helping them navigate bringing people with disabilities into the sheds – to provide the bigger picture approach,” TSMA secretary Jonathan Bedloe said. A fact about men’s sheds – they are not just for men. Most are open to men and women. Some also have programs to involve young people who are struggling at school. The men’s sheds are mostly run by volunteers, although Jonathan says a couple that are closely associated with community houses have paid coordinators.
“Some of the volunteers are doers in the sense of seeing value and putting a lot of time and energy into their shed but they may not have a lot of skills connecting the shed with the rest of the community,” Jonathan said. “Some sheds can be a bit insular with only a small group of people involved. We have a role to help those sheds that struggle.” The TSMA is volunteer-run and largely unfunded but that may change with a pre-election pledge of $555,000 for men’s sheds from the new State Government. Jonathan said the TSMA had joined TasCOSS to benefit from governance training particularly. “We also want to be part of the conversation TasCOSS has around supporting disadvantaged groups – and men often get excluded from those conversations,” he said. Find out more and contact TSMA via the Tasmanian Men’s Shed website, www.tasmensshed.org
Unions Tasmania secretary Kevin Harkins said membership of TasCOSS was a good fit for the state’s peak union body. “Unions Tasmania has made a decision to strengthen our community networks with like-minded organisations, and TasCOSS is considered a natural partner,” Kevin said. “The Tasmanian union movement and TasCOSS share many goals and have much in common. Our values are closely aligned and we both work to support the most vulnerable in our community.” He said the fight against financial and legislative threats to vulnerable people was likely to intensify over the next few years. Contact Unions Tasmania on 6234 9553, see the Unions Tas website or follow on Facebook. The Community and Public Sector Union has 4000 members working across the Tasmanian public and community sectors. The union’s Membership Assistance and Support Team last year handled 746 member cases. Most common were queries regarding entitlements like leave and allowances, classification matters, hours of work and workload, and workers compensation. The results were $494,000 of unpaid entitlements received, 55 Industrial Commission appearances on behalf of members and 15 agreements under negotiation or finalised covering 22,500 Tasmanian workers. As well as industrial representation, being a member also provides discounts and promotions such as cheaper home loans, banking, travel and gym membership, movie tickets, car hire and legal and tax services.
18
Members of the Men’s Shed at Oatlands.
Contact the CPSU on 6220 8000 or see www.cpsu.com.au
Tony Reidy
Beng Poh
Chief Executive
Executive Assistant
Jill Pope
Gabrielle Rish
Finance Officer
Communications Officer
Meg Webb
Leigh Delaney
Manager, Social Policy and Research
Acting Manager, Sector Development
Dale Rahmanovic
Wynne Russell
Development Officer
Policy and Research Officer
Sector Development Unit
Social Policy and Research Unit
Kath McLean
Tim Tabart
Senior Policy and Research Officer
Development Officer
Social Policy and Research Unit
Sector Development Unit
Klaus Baur
Gus Risberg
HACC Project Officer/Consumer Engagement
Shared Services Project Manager
Sector Development Unit
Sector Development Unit
TasCOSS The Tasmanian Council of Social Service, TasCOSS, was established in 1961. TasCOSS is the peak body for the Tasmanian community services sector.
Our mission
To advocate for the interests of low-income and otherwise disadvantaged Tasmanians, and to serve as the peak council for the state’s community services industry.
Our vision
A fair, just and inclusive Tasmania.
TasCOSS is supported by the Department of Health and Human Services.
Sponsored by Hesta.
Printed by Monotone Art Printers. Design by Charlie Bravo Design. Printed on 100% recycled paper.