The governance of Seaview

Dr. Anna Barnes, GGI Special Adviser – mental health and third sector, identifies some golden rules of governance

For 40 years the charity I am privileged to chair, Seaview, has been working to ‘alleviate poverty and distress’ in Hastings and St Leonards and now seeks to help marginalised people with addiction problems, mental health issues, ex- and at-risk offenders as well as rough sleepers to achieve personal growth and fulfilment. Recovery, however the individual defines it, is at the heart of what we do.

The origins of Seaview can be traced back to the Care in the Community Policy of the 1980s. A group of concerned local residents noticed that hundreds of people who had been resettled into the town from a variety of psychiatric hospitals in outer London and East Sussex were being placed in hotels and/or bed and breakfast establishments without much support.

Several of these compassionate local people had young adult sons and daughters who themselves had mental health problems and were feeling lonely and isolated. Thus, Seaview was born, to provide companionship, activities, social support and a place to go for people with very little income who were often sent out during the day with nowhere to go.

Thankfully, those days are long gone. There is a now a thriving network of mental health support services, although most of the original cohort of ex-long-stay patients have now died or are being looked after in nursing homes.

Self-referral ethos

However, the original principles of Seaview remain. There are no referral forms, no entry criteria, no means test, and you need no diagnosis to go there. Self-referral is key. This is significant, as often people with mental health problems won’t go to a drug or alcohol service; people with addiction problems don’t like to be seen as mental health patients.

The simplicity of open access and people defining their own needs is essential. Co-production might be a current buzzword in social policy but it means something unique at Seaview. It means that people who go there can ask for what they need and then get involved in the service itself when they feel ready.

These days, the service is perceived to be about alleviating the effects of homelessness, rough sleeping, sofa surfing, food poverty, and fuel poverty. About 150 people a week go several times a week for a cheap hot meal, new clothes, showers, advice and support. But the centre also offers a range of activities such as a choir, art groups, social outings, a music group, a woman’s group, and a men’s cooking group, to name but a few, as well as more structured addiction services.

The effects can be transformational, with service users finding that the road to recovery opens up when ‘someone sees something in them that they didn’t know they had’. Ground down by sleeping rough and using drugs, people can lose sight of their strengths and talents. Seaview doesn’t wait for them to be recovered or housed and in a structured routine to self-actualise. The services and activities are available wherever they are on their journey.

So, what does this mean for governance?

How does a board function in a traditional way, complying with the constraints of the Charity Commission, while living and breathing the charity’s ethos? It is a challenge to which I have given a huge amount of thought, as Seaview’s chair for the past 10 years and as one of the first paid members of staff in the 1980s.

Working in governance and assurance during the day and as an infrastructure and projects authority reviewer, I take the constraints of charity law very seriously.

What we do:

• Have six-weekly board minuted meetings
• Have elected officers
• Have audited accounts
• Have an AGM
• Spend a lot of time either balancing the books or agreeing a deficit and mitigation actions to bring the finance back into the black.

This is challenging when year to year the funding sources change according to which clients now use the service and which commissioners come knocking.

Last year we had a healthy surplus because of an emphasis on offender diversionary activities. The year before we had a surplus because of our rough sleepers’ contracts. Both contracts have now ended. Now we are celebrated for our work in arts and health with people in recovery, so we are targeting arts funding to expand our successful peer-led model – especially as this source of funding from last year is also now ending.

For potential trustees this can be bewildering; it’s hard to work to a three-year strategy when our staff turnover is around 50% a year as contracts end and we don’t know from year to year what our funding will be.

The only way I can think to counter this is to be crystal clear about our service model and ensure that any new trustees buy in to our unique peer-led approach. Trustees are vetted personally using a values-led approach before coming onto the board. They know they are expected to be visible in the centre and to chair service user meetings several times a year.

Board members are also expected to contribute to subcommittees that play to their strengths and experience. These are currently as follows:

• finance subcommittee
• accommodation subcommittee (we recently purchased a house for former rough sleepers)
• Awareness for Action (campaign group)

Our board members are all unpaid volunteers. I am fortunate that they have the following backgrounds:

• wealth management/law
• accountancy
• architecture/public art
• NHS
• small business
• third sector management
• lived experience of addiction

However, as alluded to by Tuckman in his famous paper about forming, storming, norming, and performing, boards do not come fully formed. As chair, while I welcome challenge and diversity of opinion (anything else is death to a healthy culture), I want the board to understand our ethos and values and to actually live them.

One potential investor described the service users as ‘inmates’, probably accidentally but quite revealingly. It would be unrealistic to expect people with diverse backgrounds to immediately understand the magic of what we do every day, but I am now experienced in vetting whether they will do so when we first meet and walk around the centre.

I purposefully cultivate a board culture that is respectful and empathetic to the unique needs of everyone who uses the service. I do this in the following ways:

• trustees attend service user meetings several times a year
• trustees are encouraged to attend our showcase events such as Seaview’s Got Talent and the annual carol concert
• trustees actively participate in staff awaydays – we use example case studies to discuss how we work with people from the moment they first come in, to the day when (hopefully) they won’t need us anymore
• trustees are always really engaged when staff with lived experience tell their personal stories of recovery.

Golden rules

Seaview is small service with a fluctuating annual turnover, currently at circa £700,000. We employ 26 staff and look after around 1,500 people a year.

Of course, no two voluntary or statutory organisations are the same, but I do believe the principles of good governance that we try to apply are translatable:

• Work on your ethos and values; be sure you feel connected to the core purpose of the organisation.
• Respect diverse backgrounds and opinions and be prepared to use the skills/experience that can benefit the organisation.
• Stay close to the people who need the service and be able to put names to faces.