The Big Issue: helping the homeless or a scam?
Post Categories: Welfare Reform
Tags: Big Issue, Gordon Roddick, John Bird, New York Street News, Social Enterprise Mark, The Big Issue, The Big Issue Company, The Big Issue Company Limited, The Big Issue Foundation, The Big Statement
As co-founder of the Big Issue, John Bird, has recently made a big statement about slashing benefits, and today I make a big statement about the Big Issue. This isn’t a retaliation remark at all, as a human being he can have his own opinion but after a discussion on sister site Ipswich Unemployed Action, doubt was raised on why he said what he did and the actual success of the Big Issue.
I take great pride in this article because I know it will upset many people as bubbling from the surface the Big Issue seems a great concept of letting homeless people help themselves instead of solely relying on handouts. Reading in between the lines it actually becomes a horror.
Big Issue: History, the silent partner, current operations and public misconceptions
I done some Google research on the Big Issue today – that is search Google for opinions on the Big Issue. Common misconceptions (in very brief) is the Big Issue was a non-profit magazine founded by John Bird for homeless people to beg for money to buy food under the front of selling a magazine.
Even going on their website today I can quote: “John Bird, Founder & Editor in Chief of The Big Issue, has written to David Cameron urging him [...]”.
There is a silent founder. John Bird only co-founded the Big Issue. Lets not discredit him – he deserves credit for being a co-founder but the other co-founder has been hidden from the PR spotlight of the Big Issue. Perhaps because John Bird was homeless at one point and the other an entrepreneur who also is attributed to being a co-founder of the Body Shop?
Gordon Roddick, was inspired by visiting New York and seeing homeless people selling a newspaper called Street News. It was later when he flew back to London that he met John Bird a homeless man (whether or not they met or knew each other before I don’t know) with experience in the print trade.
The reason they chose a magazine instead of a newspaper isn’t known (unless published in a book somewhere I don’t know about) – perhaps they were worried it would seem like copying the idea too much, perhaps they wanted to emulate the concept with something new to kinda reinvent the wheel or perhaps Bird has experience in the magazine industry.
When they founded the “organisation” it wasn’t a non-profit, charity or social enterprise… but a for-profit private limited company with shareholders. I would argue why anyone who wanted to create a social good cause business without making it a non-profit (i.e. private limited company by guarantee – no shareholders). This was in 1991.
It wasn’t until 1995 that they founded the Big Issue Foundation – a charity! I assume this was to downplay any criticism. They did NOT, however, decide to close the company and move the operations to the charity.
On Wikipedia, the Big Issue is attributed to being published, owned or run by the Big Issue Foundation and not the Company. On their website (bigissue.com) it consolidates both the private business element of operations (i.e. the magazine) with the charitable elements (the work they do with the homeless) – the footer contains registration numbers of the charity, first, and below that the company number. This, I assume appears that the company is non-profit, when indeed its not.
Lets read their about page… they claim the Big Issue is one of the largest “leading social businesses” – they say the “organisation” is made up of the limited company (that basically does everything in regards to the magazine) and the charity which helps the homeless people.
John Bird didn’t receive a single award or honour until he was in the process of setting up the Big Issue Foundation – when he did the floodgates opened – was the foundation for his benefit or the thousands of homeless people?
Big Issue: Social Enterprise?
Just last month Big Issue was awarded the Social Enterprise Mark – although it falls completely outside the remit. The Big Issue isn’t a Social Enterprise, it is a commercial business and a charity. A Social Enterprise generally falls in between the two… it doesn’t have all the advantages of a charity such as in regards to taxation, but the business also isn’t for profit.
Furthermore, a Social Enterprise defined by the Social Enterprise Coalition is a business with a “social purpose is at the very heart of what they do, and the profits they make are reinvested towards achieving that purpose”. Funny enough they are given as an example: “Well known examples of social enterprises include The Big Issue, Jamie Oliver’s restaurant Fifteen, and the fair-trade chocolate company Divine Chocolate.”
It seems to me that the Foundation pays more money to the Company than vice versa.
Big Issue: Some analysis
The Big Issue Company Limited has a share capital of 3 shares at £1 each. There are two classes – 1 share is type A and 2 shares is type B. John Anthony Bird holds 1 share that is class A that gives him full voting rights. The other 2 shares which are class B (no normal voting rights) is held by Gordon Roddick (co-founder) and Nigel Kershaw.
None of the share capital is owned by the Foundation! The Foundations latest accounts show that just £750 of its income were from corporate sources which meant that the Company had not donated any money whatsoever (other than perhaps this amount; although it could come from elsewhere; unless it was wrongly grouped to general donations) to the Foundation, furthermore, it holds no shares so doesn’t benefit from a dividend.
Looking through one of their accounts (2008/09) some worrying signs appear. The company charged the charity £232,480 for occupancy and “services” (approx a quarter of their entire income), was owed a further £1,931 and the charity charged the company £24,054 for goods and services provided.
Which ever way we want to view this from – it is clear both the company and the charity is located in the same place, share a director who founded it and share resources. If they share a building, with a company owning it or leasing it, and the charity subleasing space from the company, this is understood, but what raises greater questions for me personally is how each other are invoicing each other for goods and services.
This is black hat – bordering on fraud – charities are under extreme scrutiny unlike non-profits and Social Enterprises. The trustees must not have external interests that conflict – I would say this does exactly that. One side of the situation is a co-founder, director and shareholder who owns one third of the company and is the only one with voting rights (most powerful in the company) and on the other side he is a director and trustee of the charity.
How does this two-faced “organisation” help the homeless? One seems like a very greedy outfit which even grabs a lot of cash from the charity side of operations while the other is some charity which isn’t run in its own right but is dictated from this private business.
Big Issue: Does it help homeless people, …really?
I am not certain so I am relying on blog contributors to say whether they or someone they know had any significant help from this organisation. It would be best to highlight the work the charity does (if any)… credit where credit is due etc.
Big Issue: What I think…
This is to be known as “The Big Statement”. (Begin Freedom of Thought and Expression)
Instead of a homeless person setting up a magazine to help fellow homeless people take ownership in their lives and gain shelter by utilizing each and every homeless persons entrepreneurial spirit to turn their lives around… the reality is a little too much different.
First, Bird wasn’t alone. The Big Issue idea was actually an idea of Gordon Roddick after getting inspiration out in the states from a New York newspaper called “Street News” (founded in1989) distributed by homeless people . When he flew back to London he met John Bird (not sure if they met before then) who I can only assume was a no-body, ex-printing trade experience, after hitting rock bottom wanted a selfish way to claw his way up to the top.
Most people are unaware that a Mr Roddick (previously husband of the late Body Shop founder) was involved (should I say, “is involved” even today) as he is kept very low key (I assume it was a PR stunt as Bird was homeless himself at the time). John Bird to this day is officially reported as a Founder (without mention of Gordon Roddick) and not a co-founder – which he indeed is. After all, this is a significant difference because it wasn’t even Bird’s idea.
Secondly, it was no mistake how a private limited company by shares (that is a commercial business) was set up to run the magazine, instead of a non-profit organisation. It wasn’t until 1995 when the Big Issue Foundation was set up, and this charity didn’t take on the activities of this commercial business, they just run side-by-side. Actually, especially of late (not sure back then) they share the same building. Today, the foundation only turns over approx one million pounds (Big Issue is a household name and its over 14 years old) and only half of its expenditure goes on its charitable activities.
The Foundation doesn’t have any shares in the commercial business, share Bird who is the most powerful person in the commercial business and a trustee of the Foundation, and even share the Petty Cash on an IOU basis it seems (company loaned the charity some petty cash interest free).
Thirdly, the charity’s aims is in the description of general homeless people (otherwise it would be refused at the Charity Commission as supporting clients of a commercial business only isn’t a charitable purpose), however, its activities/objectives clearly states about Big Issue Vendors only. It would be interesting for people to comment if they have any experience of whether the foundation helps homeless people in general or a closed shop solely for vendors?
The Big Issue website etc. is shared between the company and charity; and it appears to me that they are misleading people thinking that the Big Issue is a charitable organisation (I think they even have the Social Enterprise Coalition fooled!) when indeed it is not.
Fourthly, Perhaps buying a magazine (or a street newspaper) off a homeless person where you know they will receive a cut seems a charitable gesture – it is indeed, however, most people aren’t aware that its NOT a non-profit or charity doing the magazine and the co-ordination of the distribution but a commercial business that is profiting off using homeless people to shift its magazines!
I cannot think of Big Issue as any more than a commercial business with a fake positive social charity front on; where Bird was only in for it not to help homeless people as made out to be but for himself to climb up the rope from a homeless no body with prior printing experience to someone worthy of a sustainable job, recognition, awards and an honour.
This isn’t charitable to run a nice little printing business with a small charity on the side to tick the corporate responsibility box and mislead others into greater readership figures.
Lets face it, after digging away into the Big Issue fields, we find remains that lead to solely one conclusion….. the homeless aspect was not a charitable element to help people, but was a USP for the commercial business of recruiting agents (known by the Big Issue as vendors; lets face it the homeless are everywhere sadly, and no one else would be an agent making less than minimum wage) to sell what can be seen as now a very successful magazine which was unlikely to have made it otherwise.
Using the traditional method of a distributor was a bad option as if they didn’t sell in shops they would be returned unsold. This remains very expensive, as your overheads, product costs and distributor fees would still need to be paid while you have stacks of what are now “back copies” of magazines you cant get rid of.
One of the evaluations I want to complete is who had gained the most? The homeless or people like John Bird?
John Bird got a good job out of it, respected in the industry, is an MBE (honour), has self-satisfaction of being somebody and crediting for founding what could be quoted as a revolution that coupled a new concept of distributing magazines and having a social purpose behind it, and amongst all owns one third of a successful magazine he has always dreamt of running with approx 600,000 readers a week. He has truly made something out of his life although I will admit his two latest ventures have been pretty piss poor but then again this wasn’t his idea.
At what cost? Is getting homeless people to distribute a commercial magazine with the promise of making some money to help their situation, exploitation, or a helpful inspirational change to them? Does the Foundation they set up do enough to help these people or is it solely signposting “vendors” to existing services?
If you are going to set up what I call a “social change” organisation, whatever industry and idea you have, atleast 2 in 3 elements has to be about helping the people/cause you have designed to help. Whether you get a knighthood, recognition and a huge salary, becomes all bonuses, you shouldn’t be aiming for that but keeping true to how the organisation is supposed to work. It doesn’t (in my eyes) work in reverse… you cannot aim to be a “success” in the commercial aspect and personal gain of honours and recognition while hoping that maybe, just maybe it can also do a bit of help to a select few.
Comments welcome. Comments encouraged!
I am undecided whether this is a proper social venture as made out in mainstream media etc. or a false front that can be described only as a scam or sham. I will let you the reader decide (oh yeah, you may research the above, not just take my word for it).
Link Summary
10 Responses to “The Big Issue: helping the homeless or a scam?”
Trackbacks:
Leave a Reply
Please Note: We are an independent website NOT an official Government website or a business or affiliate operating on behalf of. Please consider this before posting any personal information or if for whatever reason thinking this is connected to Jobcentre Plus. (Always look for .gov.uk at the end of the URL which specifys a Government website)
Please Note: This post is over a month old. You may want to check future posts in this blog to see if there is new information relevant to your comment.
By submitting a comment here you grant this site a perpetual license to reproduce your comment(s) and name/web site in attribution. Only comment if you agree with the below rules.
(1) All comments on Flexible New Deal Scandal are moderated for purposes of filtering out SPAMThank you for your attribution to Flexible New Deal Scandal!
(2) I reserve the right not to publish any comment for any reason such as being racist or offensive
(3) I aim to accept comments within 3 hours (but could be up to 24 hours)
(4) I will post any comments not in favour of any article for balance of discussion
(5) I do not edit comments so if the comment is partially offensive it is unlikely to be approved at all
(6) I reserve the right to append line breaks to comments so they are easier to read or remove any link
This is an important expose of something that’s annoyed a lot of people for a long time.
Congrats!
John Bird has a nerve suggesting the unemployed should do community work in return for their benefit. That work is already being undertaken by criminals sentenced to Community Payback. In any case, he should put is own house in order (SEE BELOW).
The Big Issue has been the centre of much controversy among publishers of street newspapers, mainly because of its business model. Publishers of some other street newspapers, especially in the United States, have criticised it for being overly “commercial” and having a flashy design; according to these critics, street newspapers ought to focus on covering political and social issues that affect the homeless, rather than on emulating mainstream newspapers to generate a profit. Publishers of some smaller papers, such as Making Change in Santa Monica, California, said they felt threatened when The Big Issue began to publish in their area. Other papers have also criticised The Big Issue for its professional production and limited participation by homeless individuals in writing and producing the newspaper. Others, however, have stated that The Big Issue uses a successful business model to generate a profit to benefit the homeless, and its founder John Bird has said that it is “possible to be both profitable and ethically correct. SOURCE WIKIPEDIA.
Big Issue (SW) Code of Conduct:
(no mention of being revoked once you have secured housing)
Personally seems like a lot of rules especially when the Big Issue doesn’t even become your employer.
More snippets from the official website…
(back copies issue #880 – seems profit enterpreneur James Caan (not his original name) wants a cut)
Who is gaining? Is Big Issue helping the homeless?
(cost of backcopies purchased direct from Big Issue – no homeless vendor profits from this or gets any cut – the £1.70 magazine is sold for £4 all payable to the Company and not the Foundation)
*and*
(this is now actually bordering on fraud – the subscriptions (similar concept to the back copies… the vendors dont see any of this money) are promoted as helping a homeless person… I question this because: a) it is only the Foundation which helps homeless people, not the Company, and b) where the Company might seem to be helping the homeless by letting them get 85p for each magazine they sell… this is obviously not the case if purchased direct and delivered!)
There is absolutely no mention of any percentage of the Big Issue Company revenue (such as subscriptions and back copies) being donated to the Foundation – or any promise where x percent of profits are donated to the Foundation.
A random Big Issue success story: Calvin Driver
( http://www.bigissue.com/Calvin_Driver_51.php )
Was from Nottingham, had a marriage break up and distanced from his kids.
* Moved to London (maybe few other places before that) … sold Big Issue… (once!)
* Moved to Manchester… sold Big Issue (twice!)
* Went up North… sold Big Issue (third time now!)
* Moved to Birmingham… secured himself a job (well done him!) but left after he was assaulted (JOBCENTRE PLUS REFUSED HIM BENEFITS (GAVE HIM A SANCTION) AS THOUGHT LEAVING A JOB AFTER BEING ASSAULTED WASN’T A GOOD ENOUGH REASON)
* Turned back to Big Issue and became a Vendor Co-ordinatior (whether this is a paid job or voluntary I dont know) (forth time!)
THIS TIME AND ONLY THIS TIME (after becoming a vendor co-ordinator) the Big Issue Foundation came to his rescue and helped addressed his housing needs with hostel accommodation. This was followed by permanent and secure accommodation at “Clays Lane Housing Cooperative”.
—–
My concerns are with:
Do vendors have to sign up to become a “Vendor Co-ordinator” (which I assume is a voluntary position working for the commercial business and not the Foundation) in order to get any support from the Big Issue Foundation?
If so, this is a major flaw. The Foundation isn’t helping the homeless, they aren’t even helping the vendors, of course apart from a selected few who work for them.
Replies to this comment welcomed.
if thats all he has to say let him sell his own magazines,locally the only seller looks in appearance to a romanian gypsy,i have never bought it as probably most people,its doubtful if this magazine has any real meaning to tackling the issues which it proports to support.
Off topic but i thought you would all like to know this:
John Bird is going to be on the daily politics show (After PMQ’s i think) tomorrow stateing why he believes benefits to the unemployed should be cut.
See http://www.bigissueinvest.com/the_team.aspx (click more under Nick Kershaw)
That would explain how the “Social Enterprise Coalition” recognises the Big Issue.
2008 figures:
On average if 2500 vendors were selling the Big Issue and made £8 million that year collectively, each would have earnt approx £3,200!! That surely renders the Big Issue Foundation support of small grants of moeny rather pointless.
In 2008, the Big Issue Company (commercial business) had a turnover of £15 million!! How much of this was profit? How much of this profit was seen by the homeless*? (excludes the amount they make per magazine)
*including non-vendors.
It is quoted today that the Big Issue (foundation and company) only “supports” 2,900 homeless and vulnerably housed people. Looking at the 2500 figure given above 2 years ago it seems likely they are talking about vendors and many people have raised suspicions that many vendors aren’t actually homeless or vulnerably housed.
I’ve long been suspect of the efficacy of the Big Issue programme. It’s a great idea, but when you see so many homeless comopeting for pitches daily in central Bristol you begin to wonder just how much support these peopel get trying to earn a wage and how the Big Issue deals with problems amongst staff.
However I find Bird’s comments to be so wide of the mark as to be repesentative of either the misinformed or the terminally stupid. He offers no solutions, advocates the unworkable and unethical workfare (in a fairly offhand manner – how does he propose getting training for unemployed to work with the sick). Worse, he goes on to say that the unemployed contribute to crime as they spend their dole on drugs, junk food and gambling.
We’ve seen this guy dissemble before; an embarassing tirade in front of Hardeep Singh and the others on Famous, Rich and Homeless. I see no reason to give his rant the time of day.