SocietyGuardian.co.uk - voluntary sector
'We hate to be called a food bank'
A new approach to tackling poor people's hunger recognises that food poverty isn't the only issue they are struggling with
Friday is food bank day at the Matthew Tree Project (MTP). A steady stream of clients files into the Bristol City mission. Mums with buggies, tall African men; they wait patiently on red plush pews that have been rearranged for the morning's activities. They check in with a counsellor, then go to the food store for groceries.
The clients are here because they are penniless; they exchange the voucher they have been issued with by a referring agency (referrers include local primary schools, Citizen's Advice, children's centres, asylum-seeker charities) for a bag of food collected by volunteers. So far, so like a standard food bank. But MTP's founder Mark Goodway is uncomfortable with the comparison. "We hate to be called a food bank," he says.
Goodway calls MTP a food store, which recognises that food offers a vital connection to people in financial hardship, but holds out a more demanding proposition: that simply handing out a food parcel does nothing to change the underlying poverty facing clients, particularly when impoverishment is not just a blip but something longer-term and more intractable.
Goodway is dismissive of what he calls the "food-bank mentality": the stigma food banks heap on clients; the way they can be more geared to satisfiying the spiritual needs of the provider rather than the material needs of the beneficiary; their inadequacy as a strategic response to poverty.
"If they [the client] go on Monday and get a three-day parcel, what happens on Thursday?" asks Goodway. "You don't solve the problems, it makes no sense."
Programme of support
Unlike many food banks, MTP puts no block on the number of food parcels clients can receive (other food banks limit clients, in theory, to three vouchers in one year. Clients sign up to a programme of support, with goals and an agreed exit point (when they have a job, say, or enough financial stability).
They receive counselling, debt advice and health advice each time they visit. Some clients receive an outreach service; others are signed up to a food skills and cookery course. Every six weeks they have to be re-referred by the agency that sent them. The emphasis is on taking personal responsibility, building life skills and breaking dependency on benefits and charity, to enable them to live "dignified, self-sufficient lives".
Clients may arrive in an emergency, but the ensuing intervention is designed to stabilise them and prevent further crisis. Once on the scheme, in theory, they stay as long as it takes, whether six weeks or six months. "Our job is to help them [the clients] believe in themselves, that they can have some degree of influence over what happens to them, gives them a sense of belief and hope," says Goodway.
The MTP's work was cited as "possible model for the capital" in a recent London assembly investigation into food poverty. Labour member Fiona Twycross, who led the investigation, said she was struck by its long-term approach to finding a route out of poverty for clients. "Food banks are not things we should expect in our society. But I liked the Matthew Tree ethos. It was substantially less disempowering than others we saw."
In Doncaster, they are also trying to do things differently. At Balby Bridge food bank there are nearly 30 blue carrier bags packed with food lined up at the back of St James' church hall. An hour and a half later they are all gone. This is a deprived area of south Yorkshire, and, while money has always been tight, welfare changes have pushed more people into poverty.
Church volunteers run the food bank, which is supplied by Food Aware, a local social enterprise that specialises in tackling food waste and food poverty. Anyone who takes food must pay £2.50, which is a fraction of the value of the groceries in the bag, but sends a message that this is not, strictly speaking, a charity food "handout".
Food Aware managing director Sean Gibbons is uneasy about what he calls "the food bank malarky". He has been developing food and nutrition skills projects for five years, long before food banks had any currency in the UK. The food bank name is a badge of convenience, he says, because it has resonance with the public and funders.
But it doesn't describe what he is trying to do, he says, which is to develop a food club or food co-op approach that recognises many clients' long-term issues can't be tackled by three food vouchers alone. "Take benefit sanctions," says Gibbons, They [the jobcentre] can now give you a six-month sanction. How many food parcels would that involve?"
He cites the case of a client he has been working with: "I'm trying to help him deal with things that are way beyond three food parcels. If he went to an ordinary food bank, would they help him tackle his Work Programme manager, or write to his MP? Forget the food, is the [food bank] system geared up to deal with the climate we live in?"
What both MTP and Food Aware have realised, in their different ways, is that through food they can begin to provide personalised support to clients by drawing together their diverse wider needs, whether debt, housing, health or joblessness, in a way that goes beyond the conventional "sticking plaster" food bank approach. Goodway has witnessed many clients' progress, their confidence slowly building. "Quite a few" get jobs, he says.
But the difficulty in sourcing enough donated food, coupled with rising demand for services has revealed the limits of this purely voluntary approach. Last autumn, Goodway's weekly catchups with clients revealed a spike in the number whose benefits had been sanctioned by the jobcentre for minor infringements.
The number of people on MTP's books has remained stable, not because demand has slowed but because the charity has reached the limit – about 700 cases – of what it can feasibly do with available resources. It has had to close some cases and turn away referred clients on the basis that they are "too well off".
Goodway has calculated that the amount of food needed to address food poverty in Bristol runs into millions of kilos. MTP's annual food collection, donated by churches, schools, the public and surplus food distributors is a tiny fraction of that. To scale up, even to meet a tiny bit more of that need, would require proper investment and management.
Gibbons, too, is realistic about demand and supply: he says local authorities and NHS commissioners have to be involved in funding the "post-food bank" approach. At least £100,000 is needed for Food Aware to meet demand that he describes as "overwhelming". But even that figure – at least six times its current grant-funding level – may not be enough as welfare changes hit home.
MTP is a member of the Centre for Social Justice, the poverty thinktank set up by Conservative politician Iain Duncan Smith, now the work and pensions secretary. But Goodway is increasingly detached from what he sees as CSJ's refusal to acknowledge the malign and perverse effect of social security cuts.
He has been trying unsuccessfully to get a meeting with Duncan Smith to explain to him his belief, informed by his everyday experiences at MTP, that the sheer scale of welfare cuts "make it harder for people to get into work", while the "skiver-striver" rhetoric from politicians has had a toxic, demoralising effect on his clients.
Goodway, the former boss of a media company, is perhaps an unlikely activist, but his experiences have made him more determined to highlight the risks of austerity. "I'm not politically motivated, or a member of a political party. I'm political in so far as the system has to change."
• This article was amended on 19 June 2013. An earlier version referred to "a recent Greater London Authority investigation into food poverty". The investigation was by the London assembly.
• This article was amended on 25 June 2013 to correct the name of the Doncaster church to St James.
Patrick Butlerguardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Charities must get the most out of crowdfunding and gaming
Speakers at NCVO's Evolve 2013 said that charities could make better use of crowdfunding, targeted marketing and skills sharing
The gaming industry, crowdfunding, targeted marketing and skills sharing can be much further exploited to allow the sector to thrive, said speakers at the NCVO's annual event yesterday.
In one of the busiest break-out sessions of the day - Karl Wilding, director of public policy at NCVO, said that while crowdfunding raised $1.1 million through a handful of sites in 2011, last year it generated $2.7 billion dollars across 600 platforms.
On gaming, Helen Goulden director of Nesta's Innovation Lab, said that nearly six billion hours of time was spent on popular online game World of Warcraft every year. That $2.5 billion dollars was spent on buying virtual items in games last year.
She said: "We've invested in Playmob, where people can buy virtual objects and the money goes to a relevant charity (buy a virtual tractor online and money goes towards farming equipment in Africa, for example).
Delegates were asked about how they were using technology innovatively, but few of the 160 or so in the room were able to give examples. "Think about what you can do with what's out there. For example, Age UK teamed up with skills and goods sharing site Ecomodo, for older people to offer their talents and engage in society more," said Goulden.
She believes that thinking innovatively about the sharing economy and creating initiatives such as Casserole, which encourages people to cook for their elderly neighours, or Good Gym, which sees people jogging to volunteering jobs, can enable the sector to do more for service users with less resources.
She also said that charities had to assume that "no one was searching for them online, and to look at behavioural targeting to increase awareness of their cause".
The most popular search items last year were handbag, cheap holidays, the apprentice and the budget. The numbers for donations and charities were right at the other end of the scale, said Goulden."Assume no one is looking for you. (Traditional) marketing and advertising can only take you so far. Business knows this and is exploiting the technology market using targeted advertising."
She said Nesta was investing in a technology called Re:act, which works by popping up with relevant volunteering suggestions when users are searching. For example, those looking online for gyms, might get a Good Gym pop up.
Emma Jane Cross, founder of Beat Bullying, said that while she herself didn't "even have a Facebook page", the young people the charity provides services to often prefer to access them online.
The organisation has built its own technology. "No agency out there understood what we needed: absolute safety, to track a person's journey and evaluate whether digital volunteering was working. So we had to built the technology," she said.
Cross said the charity was inundated with young people wanting support and saw doing this digitally as the most manageable, although it also sees young people face-toface."Grab hold of digital; it can scale us and help us provide more services to more people. I don't want the advice sector to be the HMV (of the voluntary sector). The private sector will just come in and do advice digitally. If we don't do digital, as a nation of advisers we'll die within five years," she said.
Cross said her organisation's ability to reduce bullying is up since we began embracing the use of technology to scale up. We have a success rate of getting one in four people back into education – way better than Serco. But they won't work with us.
This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To join the voluntary sector network, click here.
Claudia Cahalaneguardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
The Work Programme didn't work for us | Martin Bright
My charity's experience of the government's flagship payment-by-results jobs scheme has been a flop – we have had to duck and dive to find people employment outside of it
For my charity, the Work Programme (WP) has ended not with a bang, but a whimper. I don't want to stamp my feet or make a great announcement about yet another third-sector organisation pulling out of the government's flagship jobs scheme. At the Creative Society we were happy to provide training to help young people find work in the cultural sector. But referrals have gone from a dribble to a drip to nothing at all.
At the outset I was agnostic about the government's scheme. I really hoped it would work. My organisation, which was set up in 2009 to find jobs in the creative industries for long-term unemployed young people, seemed perfectly placed to provide some great opportunities. Under Gordon Brown's government's Future Jobs fund, we'd put more than 800 people back to work in theatres, film and dance companies, archives and libraries across the country.
Believe me, we tried to make it work. The WP was heralded as a great new dawn for the third sector. Released from the chains of central government, a whole new constellation of charities, businesses, social philanthropists (not to mention multinational security companies) would target the long-term unemployed. And, crucially, only be paid if they were successful. We formed a partnership to bid for a "prime" contract with a larger, not-for-profit organisation backed by a university. But, even together, we just weren't big enough to compete with the likes of A4e, G4S and Serco. When the contracts were awarded, we had to go through a further byzantine bidding process to persuade the big companies to partner with us: a huge distraction from our work with young people on the ground.
We eventually found ourselves in the supply chain of A4e and adapted a training programme we had used successfully with the Future Jobs fund. We were pretty chuffed with our training programme. Our "customers" loved it. A4e loved it – and used it as a model of good practice for providing young people with the basic interviewing, CV writing and networking skills they would need to find work. But gradually, and with huge regret, we realised there just weren't enough people coming through our doors to make the WP sustainable for us.
Ultimately, the figures speak for themselves. Under the Future Jobs fund, we put hundreds of people into jobs in a sector notoriously difficult to access for all but the most privileged young people. Under the WP, this vital work has, quite simply, dried up. We have been forced to conclude that a massive, unwieldy private-sector bureaucracy is no better, and sometimes worse, than a public-sector bureaucracy.
Like so many other employment charities, we have had to duck and dive to carry on the work we do outside the WP. Our campaign against unpaid internships has resulted in a fair access principle being written into a new Arts Council-funded scheme to put 6,500 young people into jobs. And we are using European Social fund money to find unemployed 16- to 19-year-olds jobs, education or training.
The terrible irony is that we are already mopping up after the WP. Over the past few days, charities like ours will have received calls from jobcentres telling them to prepare for people who have been through the WP and still not found a job. We will help them, of course. But there has to be a better way to get charities involved in work creation than using us as a last resort when all else has failed.
Martin Brightguardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Charities must give political parties a narrative for the voluntary sector
At NCVO's Evolve 2013 speakers said mainstream parties don't have a narrative for the voluntary sector
Now is the time to give the main political parties a narrative for the voluntary sector ahead of the 2015 General Election, said speakers yesterday at the NCVO's annual event Evolve 2013.
A main session on the election asked members thoughts around forming an agenda for politicians, looking at the economy and social justice, public services, support for charities, voluntary and social action. Karl Wilding, director of public policy at NCVO, said: "The mainstream parties don't have a narrative for the voluntary sector. We have to give them one. They are still looking for ideas to solve society's problems.
Influencing them is central to our thinking now. "Too often voluntary sector organisations are seen as a cost, something they have to spend public money on. We want them to think about how voluntary sector organisation can be a solution, an investment," he added.
Also speaking in the session, Philippa Newis, policy officer at Gingberbread, which supports single families, said charities and voluntary groups should dream big with their pre-election campaigning.
"Don't be constrained by costs, use this opportunity for staff engagement and brand and profile building. Dream big. Previously we've seen negative stories about single families disappear from the press for four or five months when campaigning before elections," she said.
Later in the day, in his closing speech, the head of NCVO Stuart Etherington said: "Opening up public services is a good example of where we can provide solutions. All of us want high quality and affordable services. The Work programme didn't set the bar high for standards of commission. We're watching closely to see opportunities coming up."
He said he felt the social value bill, which encourages local authorities to give more attention to social outcomes when commissioning, showed great promise, but he was worried there was a lack of momentum behind it.
He said many of society's problems were solvable with good policy, but was concerned about the government's rushed approach to consultation. "They won't know we have a solution unless we shout about it. This is not a time for cynicism," he said.
Etherington added that he hoped the sector could get its messages into the press through 'solutions-focused journalism' a practice Martin Lewis, chair of NCVO and ex-BBC broadcaster believes is lacking in the mainstream media.
Lewis is challenging newspaper editors to not just report stories negatively, but to look at the ways people are trying to solve problems. Etherington ended by praising the "marvellous campaigning from the sector this year", particularly highlighting work on child poverty, welfare and campaigning from Stonewall on equal marriage. "Continue asking questions, we'll be on your side," he said.
Jon Cruddas, who is running the Labour party's policy review, spoke about how Labour, who are bookmakers favourite to win the next election, would be unlikely to have big initiatives for the sector like Gordon Brown's 'v'. He said the government's style would be more about creating an "enabling environment" next time.
This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To join the voluntary sector network, click here.
Claudia Cahalaneguardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Why charities must use impact to understand beneficiaries
Impact measurement should focus on those currently lacking the advantage, resource and power to shape their own destinies
I'm passionate about social impact – measuring, planning and increasing it. Social impact means the real changes that happen in people's lives. It is the true reflection of their experience – the journeys they go on with the help of those working with them.
Charities exist for their beneficiaries. Measuring impact, first and foremost, should be about understanding how these people benefit. Clear, simple, and fundamental to the voluntary sector. Yet research shows that charities are mainly driven to measure impact not to understand beneficiaries, but to appeal to funders.
This motivation focuses on attributing change to specific interventions, organisations and even donations. If donors want to know what their gifts have achieved, charities will try to tell them. Follow the analogy far enough and you end up putting a plaque on every result of an organisation's work.
It's easy enough to do for the new wing of a gallery, but for social change it can be pretty misleading and ultimately dangerous to try to connect every pound to every change that occurs. It can even lead to programmes being designed so that they can be tracked back to a donation, not designed for greatest impact. Models such as child sponsorship have attracted criticism for this – they are fantastic for fundraising, as they focus on individuals, but may have negative impacts for precisely that reason.
So what would impact measurement look like if it were really focused on the beneficiary? WRVS (now Royal Voluntary Service) provided me with one of my first real examples. They asked the older people they worked with what they wanted from their lives, and then designed surveys around those desires. What they found was that some of the services the charity thought were great were no longer particularly wanted by their beneficiaries. That prompted the organisation into redesigning services to be more focused on users' desires.
Mac-UK gave me one of my most recent and inspiring examples. Their founder, a psychologist who realised that mental health services were not reaching the most excluded young people, founded the charity after spending enough time with those young people to win their trust and involve them directly in designing new approaches to delivering services.
More broadly, beneficiary feedback (also called constituent voice) is starting to take off, with pioneers like Keystone Accountability building on the track record of consistent customer feedback approaches in the private sector to develop approaches that could become a ubiquitous underpinning of the social sector.
All three examples have at heart a rich understanding of beneficiaries' perspectives. Something that's impossible to find in an admin cost ratio, a figure for cost savings to public services, or the number of people a programme reaches.
But why isn't beneficiary feedback already at the heart of impact measurement? My hunch is that it involves power and fear. Charities' fears that their interventions aren't as highly valued by beneficiaries as they think, or as admired as they are by funders. Fear that they might have to adapt their approaches. Power comes into it too – charity chief executives and funders have the power to decide who gets listened to, while beneficiaries don't. A true beneficiary perspective can be immensely disruptive to the status quo.
To me the most exciting prospect is that one day we'll find ways to really put the beneficiary in charge. Inspiring programmes like the Family Independence Initiative start to show what can be achieved if beneficiaries have both choice and control. Alongside the fantastic changes that families make in their lives and communities, the families own the data on their progress, are given a computer so they can track it, and earn money by reporting on progress.
Might we one day see money given directly to groups of beneficiaries to self-organise, research and design interventions, and manage programmes? What would happen if crowdfunding and co-production came together, and the result became the norm? Might traditional ways of organising the resources, delivery, and evaluation of social change and services become obsolete?
Ultimately, I believe this is the direction we need to take. If information is power, it should be in the hands of those currently lacking the advantage, resource and power to shape their own destinies. If we are not heading in this direction, there is the danger that those of us working on impact measurement in the voluntary sector become part of a parasitic system that exists because of inequality, not in order to tackle it.
This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To join the voluntary sector network, click here.
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
How skills sharing can help close the funding gap in the charity sector
A new initiative is encouraging greater sharing of skills and knowledge by twinning larger charities with smaller ones
Today marks the start of Small Charity Week and to coincide we've released some data that shows how charitable giving is split across the sector. Charity income in the UK grew by over £3.8bn in the 2007-2009 recessionary years, but distribution of these funds remains hugely uneven. The top 5% of the UK's charities receive over 85% of this income, meaning the small charities (with income less than £1m) often struggle to continue supplying their services.
Add this to the fact that real-term growth figures show that the small charity sector is actually declining and it's clear that we need to find more ways to help close this funding gap and guarantee the survival of our incredibly diverse voluntary sector.
The impact of a lack of resourceOver the past year, the team at Charity Choice have held a series of free breakfast meetings to provide networking opportunities for charities of all sizes. We were struck by just how valuable these sessions could be when it comes to sharing challenges, ideas and contacts.
For small charities, there were certain key themes that emerged straight away, all of which highlighted a clear lack of capacity and resource when it came to fundraising. In a number of cases, the task had been delegated to an individual in the charity such as an administrator or volunteer, often with no fundraising experience. They were desperate to learn about simple and practical ways to fundraise, especially when it came to making the most of the growing online opportunities.
Another common issue was fear of the unknown. As Laurence Byrne from the Honeypot Children's Charity said: "We don't want to waste the little budget we have on experimenting with techniques that have not been tried and tested."
However, it was truly inspirational to hear first-hand about how innovative the charity sector can be with very small budgets. Whether by creating a movement online or tapping up the right ambassadors, sometimes the organisations with the smallest budgets deliver the biggest impacts.
Knowledge sharing can be a hugely valuable tool for charities of all sizes, and there are already a number of fantastic mentoring schemes for small charities – but we felt that there could be more that were beneficial for charities on both sides of the spectrum.
Charity TwinningAs a result we're launching Charity Twinning today. It's a brand new initiative that aims to encourage skills and knowledge sharing across the board. The aim being that small charities can draw on the resources and insights of the larger charities, while larger charities can discover value iof getting back to the grassroots level.
For Lynda Thomas, director of fundraising at Macmillan, one of the first charities involved in the Charity Twinning scheme, it's a chance to "encourage us to think outside the box whilst giving something back to the charity community by sharing the wealth of experience we have in the Fundraising team."
Exploring new areas for fundingOne of the most exciting opportunities we've identified is for charities to explore areas they might not have considered before. A great example is legacies, where individuals support a particular cause by leaving a gift in their will. Legacies now make up over 20% of the total fundraised income in the UK. However, many charities are unsure of how to tackle or tap into these opportunities.
Amanda Pearson, national legacy and recognition giving manager at the Alzheimer's Society will be taking part in the program by twinning with Hope for Children, focusing specifically on legacies. She says: "Legacies currently account for nearly 50% of the Alzheimer's Society voluntary income. Legacy fundraising is about relationships between the individual and a charity and the choice of supporting any one of us with a gift in a will is a carefully considered one. By using our resources, we'll be able to share what a good cause for support looks like, how our 'twin' might go about getting one, what they would need to put in their promotional legacy leaflet, and how to equip your colleagues with the confidence to communicate the legacy message."
A vital stepWhen it comes to closing the funding gap, the ultimate goal would be to continue to increase the total amount given to charities as well as try to better spread the distribution of these funds. Skills sharing is just one part of the solution but it's a vital step in tackling the consistent issues of capacity, resource and low awareness. We hope Charity Twinning equips charities with a better range of choices to help shape those techniques that will deliver a lasting impact for them.
For more information on Charity Twinning click here. Tanya Noronha is publisher for Charity Choice.
This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To join the voluntary sector network, click here.
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Is the use of face-to-face fundraising worth the reputational risk?
Educating the public and charities about how fundraising works could improve perceptions
Attitudes to fundraising frequently divide both the charitable sector and the public. If it's not the admin costs, it's the fact that fundraisers are paid for the volume of appeals. And nothing quite raises the heckles like face-to-face fundraising (F2F).
The Directory of Social Change's recent poll on F2F is a case in point, with 70% of the 293 respondents believing it to be "appalling and damaging". Of the survey's 96 written comments, much of the ill-feeling focused on "paid canvassers", many of whom are "young with no knowledge of the cause", who "browbeat" the public and give charities "a bad name".
Objections to F2F also make regular appearances in newspaper op-eds, blogs and on Twitter, with people grumbling about "aggressive behaviour" and how they can't walk down a street without being asked 20 times. Criticism of direct mail is less vocal, but no less important. Indeed, DM receives the most official complaints of all the fundraising techniques used, generating 14,903 in 2011, according to the Fundraising Standards Board (FRSB). These complaints tend to focus on the frequency of appeals and poor use of data.
Many people believe charities should stop using these techniques before they irreversibly blacken the name of the sector. But is the use of controversial techniques worth the reputational risk? And what, if anything, can be done to improve perceptions?
First, it's important to put criticism of F2F and DM into context. DM may have received almost 15,000 complaints in 2011, but with more than 172m mailings sent these equate to just 0.009% of the volume. The same applies to F2F. Doorstep fundraising received 2,877 complaints (0.145% of volume) while street fundraising received 1,098 complaints (0.003% of volume). Indeed, while the profile of "chugging" may give the perception that it's the most complained-about mechanism, it actually features among eight means of raising cash, including beloved raffles.
Equally, when compared to corporates charities perform well, says Mike Lordan, operations chief at the Direct Marketing Association. "We run the Mailing Preference Service. There are very few charity complaints. I don't see this as a crisis."
Not only that but these tools raise many millions of pounds each year, argues Mark Astarita, director of fundraising at the British Red Cross and chair of the Institute of Fundraising. To stop using them would have a catastrophic effect. "The sector would lose billions and millions of people would not get help as a result. Society has a choice. To stop us from asking nicely means ignoring the plight of many," he says.
A fair and important point. But how do the experiences of those people who don't like these techniques impact on giving levels? DM may raise millions of pounds from the 1.5% who respond to cold appeals, but what about the other 98.5%? F2F may raise millions from the people who sign up. But what about those who were asked and said no? Could it be that more money could be raised if only people were asked in a more appropriate way?
We know from research by CAF that the proportion of people donating to charitable causes in a typical month has decreased over the last year, from 58% to 55%. In addition, the estimated total donated in 2011/12 was £9.3bn, a decrease of £2.3bn in real terms. How much of this is down to the economy and how much is the result of poor fundraising? There is little research readily available to help answer this question. In 2012, Adrian Sargeant published a paper on Donor Complaints about Fundraising but this looked more at the incidence of complaints rather than the impact of dissatisfaction on attitudes to charity. Instead, the study turned to levels of public trust for clues. But even this was unclear.
A recent Ipsos MORI report showed confidence remains high. However, the same survey also found fundraising becoming increasingly unpopular, with 67% of people saying some methods, such as street and telephone, "make them feel uncomfortable", an increase from 60% in 2010. With the exception of a line that said "a negative experience can make someone less willing to donate to that charity", no further insight into what impact this had on giving levels was offered.
"Research into attitudes and irritations would be helpful," agrees Alistair McLean, chief executive of the FRSB. "What one person thinks is aggressive another will think is ok. To cross-reference this with age could help charities get the balance right when they are making approaches."
In his view, however, this is not about stopping using particular tools, but about education, starting within charities themselves: "There would be great merit in those people who sit outside the fundraising community understanding more about how all fundraising works," he says.
This opinion is reiterated by others, including Martin Jervis, chief executive of Fundraising Initiatives, a F2F agency. "This is fundamentally a leadership issue. Fundraisers need to educate their executive teams. There needs to be more on fundraising at trustee conferences. There are not enough conversations between fundraisers and trustees. This would help convince people that these types of fundraising are well managed."
The PFRA provides an example of how leadership can have a positive impact. It has recruited some of its member charities to advocate for F2F with the press. "We've persuaded charities to come and be confident on the fundraising they do. It has helped change attitudes," says its head of communications, Ian McQuillan.
More advocacy combined with research into how experiences of fundraising impacts on propensity to give could go a long way towards both satisfying the critics and strengthening confidence across the board. As the FRSB's McClean says: "The public's high level of trust is a privilege not a right. Charities need to work hard on all fronts to protect the reputation they enjoy."
This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To join the voluntary sector network, click here.
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
I'm 50 and on the verge of walking out of my well-paid money-driven sales job
There has to be more to life than delivering a profit – what can I do to give something back to society?
Each Friday and Monday we publish the problems that will feature in a forthcoming Dear Jeremy advice column in the Guardian Money supplement so that readers can offer their own advice and suggestions. We then print the best of your comments alongside Jeremy's own insights. Here is the latest dilemma – what are your thoughts?
For the past 20 years I have worked at a franchised car dealership, the last 12 as a general manager responsible for up to 40 staff and delivering a profit for my owners. As I approach age 50, I have become disillusioned with this drive for profits and the demands from the manufacturer that I "share their aspirations". The pressure has become so intense that I am on the verge of walking out of a well-paid job with nothing else lined up.
What to do next is my dilemma. Having spent so long in a financially-driven business that lacks any real humanity I would prefer an environment where I can give something back, be that advice services, charity work, conservation – anything focused on helping rather than money-making. All my skills have been gained through experience and on-the-job training, but over the last 20 years I have been involved in all aspects of people, process and financial management. I have enough savings to take a year out to train if necessary, but I do need to earn, so long-term volunteering is not viable. While married, I have no dependent children, which means working abroad would be an option.
I guess all this smacks of the stereotypical midlife crisis, but I need to get out fast before my current job destroys me. I lack a clear sense of direction so really need some pointers as to where I should be heading.
• Do you need advice on a work issue? For Jeremy's and readers' help, send a brief email to dear.jeremy@guardian.co.uk. Please note that he is unable to answer questions of a legal nature or reply personally
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
How becoming an honorary treasurer could enhance your career
The role of honorary treasurer is an important one and treasurers are most effective when they are committed
It is often the honorary treasurer to whom trustees look for advice, guidance and reassurance on all aspects of charities' financial management and reporting. The treasurer also provides support for the chair and chief executive. It can, therefore, be a great opportunity for finance professionals to gain valuable new skills and experience.
As a voluntary position, like the rest of the board of trustees, it is important that anyone who considers taking on the role understands the commitment and responsibility it brings, as well as the benefits that the role can have on both personal and career development.
Why take on the role?People take up trustee roles for a number of reasons. They might be passionate about the cause and wish to support and help drive the charity forward or be motivated to make a contribution to society.
But being a trustee is not only about giving; it is also about gaining. Becoming a treasurer in a charity can offer finance professionals a different perspective on the role of financial management, not only from the perspective of a non-profit organisation, but also from a more independent viewpoint.
A treasurer needs to think strategically and be able to take the generative, holistic view of the organisation. Taking on a treasurer role extends knowledge and introduces new ways of thinking from people who come from diverse walks of life.
Patrick Vigors, honorary treasurer of MapAction, says: "I have a background in finance and so the honorary treasury role adds a different dimension to commercial life and allows me to give something back. I also enjoy working with volunteers and staff with capabilities that I would not normally encounter in business."
Dr Helen Stokes is a trustee and honorary treasurer of the Royal College of General Practitioners. She started as assistant treasurer in November 2011, took up full office in November 2012, and will be in the post for a minimum term of five years.
She says: "As an honorary treasurer, I get to work with some remarkable people in a wide range of environments, not just on the financial and GP side, but in the wider medical community and charity sector as well." She concedes that the role isn't easy and says that it is challenging to keep on top of the vast number of activities the organisation is involved with. However, she never ceases to be amazed by the diversity and innovation that surround her.
What are the main aspects of the role and the skills needed? The role is not just about compliance and governance activities, it is about being able to make a real difference and a direct impact on the work of the charity. The treasurer is most effective when they are committed to the purpose and where the size and complexity of the charity provide an appropriate level of activity.
The main difference between the role of finance professional and honorary treasurer is perspective. In governance terms, the board is responsible for determining the strategy, whereas the executive team delivers the agreed strategy. The treasurer needs to be the financial conscience of the organisation, concerned not only in fiduciary and stewardship matters, but also in understanding the bigger picture.
The treasurer must be able to take a broad perspective to recognise financial risk from the operational data and be able to review outcomes to ensure that the charity is effective and efficient. This requires skills that are much more business orientated than pure number crunching.
The key to the role is being able to build trusted relationships and inspire confidence, so good communication skills are crucial. The treasurer also needs to be able to explain the technicalities of the accounts in plain language so that other trustees understand and are interested in finance issues to enable informed discussion and decision making. All of the trustees are legally responsible for understanding the finances and the treasurer's role is paramount in ensuring that their understanding is sound. A good treasurer also considers external communication and ensures that the statutory annual accounts and trustees report are clear and provide a real picture of achievement.
Volunteering as a treasurer is a good way to gain new skills and experience working in what can be a challenging environment. It is also a great way to network, to meet people you wouldn't normally meet, and to give something back. The experience can be hugely rewarding for the right person.
The Honorary Treasurers Forum was formed in 2004 and is free to join. It provides a vital resource and support for treasurers through information, research, networking events and forum meetings on a variety of current issues.
For more information click here.
Denise Fellows is chief executive of the Honorary Treasurers Forum.
This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To join the voluntary sector network, click here.
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
How charities can switch accounts effectively
A new service available to small charities from September will make switching accounts simpler and more reliable
The economic challenges of the past few years have had an undeniable and visible impact upon the UK's voluntary sector organisations. Funding cuts and commissioning changes for services have changed the outlook for many organisations. Effective financial management, plus the management of ever more important donations, remain a key factor in maintaining the stability of the charitable sector.
At the Payments Council we work to ensure that the UK's payment systems deliver for everyone that uses them, now and in the future. Co-operation with the charity and voluntary sector is integral to this work. Our unique role ensures that we listen to a wide range of stakeholders, driving innovation in payments and implementing change.
One of these changes begins in September this year. Led by the Payments Council, a new, free-to-use Current Account Switch Service will be launched that will make switching from one bank or building society to another simpler, reliable and hassle-free. Banks and building societies covering virtually 100% of the competitive current account market will offer the new service. Small charities with an annual income of less than £1m, as well as small trusts with a net asset value of less than £1m will be eligible to use it.
At present, very few people or organisations switch current accounts and often this is due to the perceived hassle or the fear that something will go wrong. In the market research we undertook to help us understand these barriers we found that 57% of small charities believed switching wouldn't be easy, 65% thought it wouldn't be quick and two-thirds believed there would be errors involved. The new switching service aims to remove these barriers.
For charities, a key benefit of the new service is that the new bank will arrange for all existing payments (those coming in, such as donations, as well as those going out, such as bill payments or wages) to be automatically transferred to the new account. This includes all regular donations made via standing order or Direct Debit.
Additionally, and crucially, a new central redirection service will ensure that any payments accidentally sent to the old account after the switch date will be redirected automatically to the new account for a period of 13 months. So, a charity will still receive a donation that anyone accidentally makes to their old account (perhaps because they still have the old account details). Also, if the payment was made electronically (via a faster payment, direct debit or standing order), the donor will have the charity's new details automatically updated by their bank. This will ensure that any subsequent donation goes straight to the charity's new account rather than to the old one.
To increase simplicity further, the switching process will be managed in full by the new bank or building society, and there will be no need to talk to the old one. The old account will remain open, and can be used by the charity up until the switch date, at which point the old account is closed and the new account becomes active.
The switch time has also been decreased to just seven working days, rather than the average 18 to 30 days that it currently takes, and the switch takes place on a date that suits the customer. Charities using the new service will be able to choose the day they wish the switch to take place, allowing them the necessary time to obtain any required signatories.
Finally, a key change championed by the service is that, for the first time, switching current account will be backed by a guarantee. This guarantee will ensure customers receive a clear and consistent level of service, highlighting the benefits and confirming that the customer will be refunded any charges and interest in the event of a failure of the service.
With the new Current Account Switch Service we aim to deliver a service that tackles concerns surrounding switching. In turn, this should help to increase competition on the high street and support the entry of new banks into the marketplace. This new service has been designed to offer distinct benefits to consumers, small businesses and small charities alike. In today's current economic environment we believe this simpler, guaranteed and hassle-free service will offer new alternatives for small charities looking to effectively manage their finances.
Adrian Kamellard is chief executive of the Payments Council.
This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To join the voluntary sector network, click here.
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
India cracks down on foreign funding of NGOs
Activists accuse government of stifling their right to dissent
Amid an intensifying crackdown on non-governmental groups that receive foreign funding, Indian activists are accusing the government of stifling their right to dissent in the world's largest democracy.
India has tightened the rules on non-governmental organisations over the past two years, following protests that delayed several important industrial projects. About a dozen NGOs that the government said engaged in activities that harm the public interest have seen their permission to receive foreign donations revoked, as have nearly 4,000 small NGOs for what officials said was inadequate compliance with reporting requirements.
The government stepped up its campaign recently, suspending the permission that Indian Social Action Forum (Insaf), a network of more than 700 NGOs across India, had to receive foreign funds. Groups in the network campaign for indigenous peoples' rights over their mineral-rich land and against nuclear energy, human rights violations and religious fundamentalism; nearly 90% of the network's funding comes from overseas.
"The government's action is aimed at curbing our democratic right to dissent and disagree," said Anil Chaudhary, who heads an NGO that trains activists and is part of the Insaf network. "We dared to challenge the government's new foreign donation rules in the court. We opposed nuclear energy, we campaigned against genetically modified food. We have spoiled the sleep of our prime minister."
In its letter to Insaf, the home ministry said the group's bank accounts were frozen and foreign funding approval suspended because it was likely to "prejudicially affect the public interest".
A government official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, said the government is not against criticism. But when an NGO used foreign donations to criticise Indian policies, "things get complicated, and you never know what the plot is", the official said, adding that NGOs should use foreign donations to do development work instead.
The US is the top donor nation to Indian NGOs, followed by Britain and Germany, according to figures compiled by the Indian government, with Indian NGOs receiving funds from both the US government and private US institutions. In the year ending in March 2011, the most recent period for which data is available, about 22,000 NGOs received a total of more than $2bn from abroad, of which $650m came from the US.
Asked about the Indian government's moves against foreign-funded NGOs, a US state department spokesman said the department was not aware of any US government involvement in the cases. The spokesman said such civil society groups around the world "are among the essential building blocks of any healthy democracy".
The situation in India is not unlike the problems that similar groups face in Russia, where a law passed last year requires foreign-funded NGOs that engage in loosely defined political activities to register as "foreign agents".
Trouble for many non-profit activist groups in India began more than a year ago when prime minister Manmohan Singh blamed groups from the US for fomenting anti-nuclear protests that have stalled the commissioning of India's biggest reactor, a Russian-backed project in Koodankulam in power-starved Tamil Nadu state.
US officials, including Peter Burleigh, the American ambassador at the time, quickly moved to assure Indian officials that the US government supports India's civil nuclear power programme. And Victoria Nuland, then the state department spokeswoman, said the US does not provide support for non-profit groups to protest nuclear power plants. "Our NGO support goes for development, and it goes for democracy programmes," Nuland said.
Although Singh was widely criticised for his fears, the government froze the accounts of several NGOs in southern India within weeks.
"All our work has come to a stop," said Henri Tiphagne, head of a human rights group called People's Watch. "I had visited [the] Koodankulam protest site once. Is that a banned territory?"
But the government's action appears to have had its desired effect. "NGOs are too scared to visit Koodankulam or associate with us now," said anti-nuclear activist SP Udayakumar.
Meenakshi Ganguly, south Asia director of Human Rights Watch, said many NGOs were afraid to speak up about the suspension of their foreign funding approval, which is "being used to intimidate organisations and activists".
Analysts say the government's way of dealing with dissent is a throwback to an earlier era. But Indian authorities have been particularly squeamish about criticism of late. As citizens have protested corruption and sexual assaults on women and demanded greater accountability from public officials, authorities have often reacted clumsily – beating up peaceful protesters and cracking down on satirical cartoons, Facebook posts and Twitter accounts.
Officials say NGOs are free to use Indian money for their protests. But activists say Indian money is hard to find, with many Indians preferring to donate to charities.
A recent report by Bain & Co said that about two-thirds of Indian donors surveyed said that NGOs have room to improve the impact they are making in the lives of beneficiaries. It said that a quarter of donors are holding back on increased donations until they perceive evidence that their donations are having an effect.
"They give blankets to the homeless, sponsor poor children or support cow shelters," said Wilfred Dcosta, co-ordinator of Insaf. "They do not want to support causes where you question the state, demand environmental justice or fight for the land rights of tribal people pitted against mighty mining companies."
Insaf, whose acronym means "justice" in Urdu, has seen its portion of foreign funding increase significantly during the past 15 years. Now it receives funds from many international groups, including the American Jewish World Service and Global Greengrants Fund in the US, and groups in Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands.
The top American donors to Indian NGOs include Colorado-based Compassion International, Washington DC-based Population Services International and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
"It is not a question about money, it is a fight for our right to dissent," said Chaudhary. "I don't need dollars to block a road."
This article appeared in Guardian Weekly, which incorporates material from the Washington Post
Rama Lakshmiguardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
How charity evaluators are changing the donations landscape
Charity evaluators are on the rise and those they choose to endorse can receive windfalls worth millions
Charities often ask for donations by appealing to people's hearts, not their heads. However, many large-scale donors, such as foundations and government departments, demand evidence that their money will be used well.
A new type of organisation, the charity evaluator, has started to assess voluntary sector organisations with similarly hard-headed techniques, using data and scientific research to advise individual givers where to donate. They typically recommend a handful of organisations each year rather than trying to rate lots – and those chosen can receive windfalls worth millions.
But there are drawbacks. Such recommendations, often of very small organisations, can take a lot of staff time to win, and are no guarantee of regular income. Furthermore, such charity evaluators currently focus on single-purpose organisations that work in the developing world, mostly in healthcare.
"Realistically for most charities, there is no chance of getting a GiveWell recommendation," says Alexander Berger, senior research analyst for the San Francisco-based charity evaluator, founded in 2007 by two hedge-fund staffers. Robert Wiblin, director of research for Oxford-based evaluator Giving What We Can, says it tends to choose effective healthcare interventions first, before looking for organisations that deliver them well.
Giving What We Can was founded in 2009 by Oxford academic and ethical philosopher Toby Ord, who pledged to donate £1m of his estimated £1.5m lifetime income to charities. It has more than 300 members who have pledged to donate at least 10% of their income, worth an estimated $120m (£77m) over the coming decades, and they want this money to do the greatest possible good. GiveWell, with a similar results-based approach, reckons it directed $9.57m (£6.2m) in donations in 2012, nearly double the previous year.
Both evaluators currently recommend just three organisations – and the two that appear on both lists, Against Malaria Foundation (AMF) and Schistosomiasis Control Initiative (SCI), are both based in Britain, and tightly focused on specific inexpensive interventions that are proven to save lives. AMF has funded four million long-lasting insecticidal nets costing £2.50 each, while SCI has dispensed 100m treatments for schistosomiasis – an often-fatal family of parasitic worms also known as bilharzia – that cost less than 50p a year. Both are small and fund many or all of their overheads from alternative sources.
Rob Mather, AMF's chief executive, says it received $4m in just four days at the end of 2012 as a result of receiving GiveWell's recommendation in November: many Americans make tax-deductible charitable donations in a "giving season" at the end of December, which is the end of the tax year. "We don't have any marketing budget, nor would we," says Mather, describing the recommendations as "fabulous marketing – the best source of marketing is when other people talk about you". Overall, he says AMF has quadrupled in revenue, to more than $6m for the year ending this June, as a result of the recommendations.
SCI, which similarly has no marketing or advertising budget, has taken on a new part-time member of staff (paid for through a special donation rather than general funds) to help deal with donors and evaluators. Professor Alan Fenwick, SCI's director, previously did this work himself. He is also professor of tropical parasitology at Imperial College London, and SCI is effectively a ring-fenced fund within that university's charities in the UK and US; it was founded with a £20m donation from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and has more recently received millions from the Department for International Development (DfID) under a five year contract.
"It is a significant time commitment," Fenwick says of the evaluations. "But it's been good for us." As well as extra money, working with the evaluators has led SCI to publish more financial data publicly, rather than responding separately to each donor. It has also been able to start dispensing medicines in new areas including Mauritania, Senegal and Zimbabwe – funding from DfID is tied to specific countries. "It allows us to do so much more and respond to smaller countries," Fenwick adds.
The fact that donations pay for work that would not otherwise take place is rated highly by both charity evaluators. Robert Wiblin says that this is one reason Giving What We Can has not recommended larger, multi-programme charities –along with the fact that most do not provide detailed information on specific projects allowing assessment. But he adds that some are shifting in this direction, including Oxfam. Wiblin adds that Giving What We Can requires about 10 to 20 hours of a successful charity's time, although it uses the detailed reports produced by GiveWell as part of its process.
Alexander Berger says it can take more than 100 hours to complete GiveWell's application process, although much less for those rejected at an early stage. While it does not do independent checks, "the organisations would have to be literally lying to us" to defraud it, he adds.
GiveWell relies on charities applying to it, and provides a list of interventions it is interested in supporting – all but one involve developing world healthcare, although the other charity it recommended in November 2012, GiveDirectly, gives money to the very poor using the MPesa mobile phone payment service. Evaluators employ academic research and data on what works, which is plentiful for healthcare and economics, the latter providing support for GiveDirectly's approach.
Berger says it is open to charities working in other fields in the developing world, while Wiblin sees possibilities in education and political empowerment: "It's just more difficult to get an assessment of the impact those organisations are having," he adds.
Evaluators' recommendations may recur – but there is no guarantee. Alexander Berger says that GiveWell advises its recommended charities to treat donations as "a windfall lump sum", as it considers its recommendations afresh each year. Charity evaluators appear to be growing quickly in terms of the funds they direct, although they make up only a small amount of total personal donations. And they could have a wider, beneficial, impact on charities, according to AMF's Rob Mather. AMF links each donation to a project online, providing news, results and photos, with the aim of showing that each donation is well spent.
"The vast number of charities still publish anecdotal accounts," says Mather. "That for me doesn't cut it, because it's storytelling." He argues that, at a minimum, charities should publish all the donations they receive, anonymously if the donor prefers, then look at allowing them to allocate donations to specific programmes. "By doing some degree of project-based fundraising, you are engaging your donor base," he says. "I believe the greatest single drag on people giving is cynicism."
This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To join the voluntary sector network, click here.
SA Mathiesonguardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
How small businesses relate to their communities
Small businesses are willing to help their communities, but skills-based volunteering has still fallen
When people talk about businesses and charities working together they are usually referring to big corporates making financial commitments to big-name charities. In truth, a wide range of engagement takes place between moderately-sized bodies in both camps. This is often recognised both for the public benefit it brings and the commercial sense it expresses – for both partners.
Less widely appreciated is the value of the community engagement of Britain's small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) of under 250 employees, 99% of which employ fewer than 50. SMEs make up 99.9% of all UK businesses, they employ 60% of the private sector workforce and generate half of its revenue, but they do not shout collectively about their CSR record, are not easy to communicate with collectively and often do not realise how much social as well as economic benefit to society they can generate.
I recently had the opportunity through a small, non-programme grant from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation to examine how SMEs relate to their communities in the contrasting cities of York and Bradford. An online survey asked about their habits of volunteering the time and skills of their workforce, fundraising and the donation of goods and services to good causes. We explored attitudes and discovered interesting trends.
Payroll giving was not found at all in companies with fewer than five employees, but, in the sample as a whole, it occurred at double the national average. This suggests that the companies that replied were better disposed towards community engagement than the business population as a whole. Despite the difference in the economic fortunes of the two cities, their SMEs related to the communities in common ways and to similar extents, with the exception that York businesses were much more likely to purchase fair-trade goods where they could. SMEs across the board tended to think that it was right for businesses to engage with communities and that more could be done in this respect.
One interesting outcome was that even the very smallest businesses were willing to volunteer the skills of their workforce to support a local good cause, while time volunteering – involving lower levels of skill than skills volunteering – was very limited where time was at a premium.
Time volunteering started at a very low level in the smallest companies but grew consistently. Where there were more than 50 employees, there was a 50% chance that the company would contribute employees' time to a good cause occasionally.
At this size of company, the level of skills volunteering, often of more value to a charity than the giving of time alone, such as for fundraising, was falling. This is perhaps because in these middle-sized companies team-building measures were held to be more important to the company than external community engagement.
Unfortunately, the archetypal volunteering episode, in which the company finance manager paints the youth club fence while the club treasurer sits inside tearing his hair out, is alive and well.
What appeared to be missing, even from my well-disposed sample, was a rationale for community engagement and a strategy to support it. SMEs with fewer than 50 employees rarely acknowledge a specific CSR or community engagement role.
Although examples of excellent practice were found, SMEs' awareness of national organisations and events that promote CSR or community engagement was very low.
Elsewhere, campaigns such as Coethica extol the virtues of SME engagement with communities, and, in boroughs such as Merton, voluntary and business umbrella groups work together in recognition of the fact that those local charities are actually SMEs. Tameside 4 Good is a remarkable online initiative to encourage SMEs to give to the local community by supporting local good causes appropriately – without such communication channels, those needs may never fully be met. As one charity reported, it can be easier to get a local business to donate a £20 raffle prize than to go through the bureaucracy of requesting a £20 voucher from a national department store chain.
The SME sector of British business is relatively unexplored by charities looking for partners to help them grow and be sustainable. There is a willingness for those businesses to engage with good causes as long as what is sought is appropriate and proportionate. There is even a business conscience there that knows that the smaller end of the corporate sector could do more.
I hope my free report, The Social SME, will open a few doors.
Tom Levitt is a writer and consultant on third sector issues.
This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To join the voluntary sector network, click here.
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Carl Poll obituary
In 1990, our friend and colleague Carl Poll, who has died aged 63 after complications following a lung transplant, formed the organisation KeyRing, which creates supported living networks comprising 10 homes. People who need support live in nine of the homes, while a volunteer supporter lives in the 10th. KeyRing demonstrated that people with learning disabilities could live independently and support each other. The organisation bore the hallmarks of all of Carl's work – combining inventiveness with empowerment of disadvantaged people. KeyRing continues to thrive and its approach has been adopted internationally.
Born in Leicester, Carl spent his early years living above a fish and chip shop run by his parents, Tony and Joan. He was educated at Wyggeston grammar school and took bachelor's and master's degrees in German from Newcastle University (1973) and Bristol University (1975). He later obtained further qualifications in education, printing and voluntary sector management.
After a short time living in Paris teaching English, Carl moved to London in 1979. He met Caroline Scott in 1983. They had two sons, Freddy and Billy, and married in 2002.
He worked for a time in printing in the early 80s and joined the Elfrida Society, supporting people with learning disabilities. The experience prompted the realisation that the one thing that would most improve the lives of people with learning disabilities was support to live independently. This led Carl to form KeyRing.
Carl was diagnosed with interstitial lung disease in 2000 and left KeyRing three years later, embarking on a productive freelance career. From 2003 to 2008, he was a pivotal figure at the charity In Control, which aims to give people needing additional support more control over that support. His work there contributed to a radical change in UK public policy towards self-directed support, with more than 400,000 people now having their own personal budgets.
His other achievements included pioneering high-quality accessible information for people with learning disabilities; creating the Small Sparks programme (in 2003), which enables people with learning difficulties to lead community development projects; and co-founding the charity Manavodaya International (in 2010) to share the teachings of Varun Vidyarthi about social change.
In 2011, Carl co-founded the Campaign for a Fair Society, editing its manifesto and producing its website and newsletter. He was also a fellow of the Centre for Welfare Reform. Carl was an innovative social activist whose modesty belied the range of his achievements. Thousands of disadvantaged people continue to benefit from his vision, energy and intelligence.
He is survived by Caroline, Freddy and Billy and by his brother, Roger, and sister, Jacqui.
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
MPs urge charities to control 'chuggers' in wake of public criticism
MPs have told firms involved in street fundraising that they have five years to address public concerns over the practice
A regulatory crackdown on street fundraising – known as "chugging" – is inevitable if charities fail to address public concerns over the practice, MPs have warned.
Critics of chugging, in which salespeople cajole passersby to sign up for direct debit donations to good causes, say it is a form of public harassment and causes nuisance to shoppers.
Firms involved in street fundraising, which raises about £130m a year, are regulated by the voluntary sector itself. But the report by the House of Commons public administration select committee (Pasc) says this is not working.
"It is clear that self-regulation has failed so far to generate the level of public confidence which is essential to the success of the system and the reputation of the charitable sector," it says.
The Pasc proposes the current system be "placed on notice", and if there are no improvements within five years, statutory regulation should be introduced. "There should be no complacency from the charitable sector about the need to rebuild public confidence in charity fundraising."
Fundraisers told MPs that chugging – a name derived from "charity mugging" – had attracted few complaints. Public annoyance at the practice stemmed from feelings of guilt because "some people just do not like to be asked to support charity".
The report rejected calls by a rightwing thinktank to tighten up the rules to curtail political campaigning by charities such as Shelter and Child Poverty Action group. But it does recommend that all charities be required to declare in their annual accounts what money they spend on "political and communications work".
"Clear information about how much a charity spends on political and campaigning activity would enable members of the public to make an informed choice about whether to donate based on an understanding of how an organisation would use their donation," the report says.
However, Sir Stephen Bubb, chief executive of charity umbrella body the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations (Acevo), said there was no public support for restricting charities' right to campaign and called the proposal "an unnecessary piece of red tape".
He said: "The proposal is entirely without foundation and would impose a regulatory burden that would mean more donations being spent on bureaucracy, and less on good causes. It is a regulatory madness and the government should reject it."
The report partly exonerates the Charity Commission for its apparent failure to detect a fake charity, the Cup Trust, which was used as a front for a multimillion pound tax avoidance scheme.
The commission was criticised this week by Margaret Hodge, chair of the Commons public accounts committee, who said she would launch an investigation into whether the commission was "fit for purpose".
But the Pasc report concludes that the commission, which has lost a third of its budget in two years, did not have the capacity to investigate potential tax fraud, which is the role of HMRC.
It warned that if ministers wanted the commission to investigate tax avoidance, they should fund it adequately. "Ministers must decide whether they think it is necessary to have a proactive regulator of the charitable sector, and if so, the government must increase the commission's budget and ask Parliament to clarify their powers."
Patrick Butlerguardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Running in Sierra Leone: 'The hardest thing I've done'
Even experienced runners struggled with the heat and humidity during a race in Sierra Leone. For a novice, it was almost unendurable. But it was all in a good cause …
The marathon race doctor was the last to speak on the eve of the big event. Dizziness, confusion, nausea and extreme headaches were among the signs runners should watch out for as indicators of possible thermal injury. "If you find yourself taking a wrong turn, turn back but just check yourself. Are you feeling muddled? This could be a sign of heatstroke."
Travelling to Sierra Leone to do my first half marathon was always going to be a challenge – I'd never run further than 10km before. The notion of descending on a rural town, where shacks passing for homes line the streets, seems like an obscene first-world indulgence. The cost of a decent pair of trainers would feed six children for a month.
There was, however, a method in the madness. The 175 foreign runners in this tiny event (800 participated in the full, half and 5K races in total) were all here to raise money for a charity, Street Child for Sierra Leone, which established the marathon as a fundraising event last year. It seems that some people actually relish the prospect of running not just in heat, but in humidity that can push 90%.
The climate wasn't the only challenge awaiting. The Wusum Hotel, where many runners were staying, had decided it would be a good idea to stage a beauty pageant the night before the race. Regardless of our 3.45am collection time to get to the start line, the PA system competed with chanting, whistling and screaming – still going strong at our very early breakfast.
Despite the sleep deprivation, the atmosphere ahead of the race was electric, even as we were marshalled into a runner's pen in the pitch dark. A sense of camaraderie had already been established through site visits to the charity's projects, and with dawn breaking it was game on. At 6.30am we were off. Conditions were relatively good: temperatures in Sierra Leone can get up to 30C by 9am, but it was the start of the rainy season and the cloud cover depressed the mercury. Being a half-marathon virgin, the pace was fastish for my level, but my strategy was to take it slowly with the aim of merely completing.
Physically, the race was such a struggle I don't think I can even count it as my first half marathon. But it was unbeatable for its novelty – one minute I was running through the town of Makeni, passing the girls in the beauty pageant trudging home at 7am; the next I was on vibrant red dirt tracks coursing through villages and undulating forestland, where rusty tin corrugated roofs peeked out between the trees. And all to the soundtrack of "Oporto, Oporto" (white person) from the excited little children and the occasional "Thank you, thank you" (for raising money for the charity). Despite the living conditions, there is palpable optimism and it feels as if the country is on the move again after 10 years of civil war.
But it was tough: within half an hour I was struggling. The humidity was absolutely stifling. I stopped, walked for a bit, sucked a Lucozade tablet, wondered if I could complete the course at all and then carried on. It got better, then worse, then better again. By mile 10, I was really struggling. Water had been in short supply but my socks were soaked from the relentless perspiration. I completed the course in 2hr50min, exhausted and slightly frustrated.
Even the experienced runners suffered. David Hellard, the international winner of the marathon, said: "The humidity was really tough. Even after two miles, it was strange. It was difficult to know your pace. I wanted to walk at about five. You just couldn't cool down." He crossed the finish line in 3hr15min, just under half an hour after the winner, Freetownian Chris Johnson, who finished in 2hr49min. Darryn Bushbye, another international runner, who finished in 3hr23min, said: "That was the hardest thing I've done. Soul-destroying at times. You underestimate the heat. I went off too fast, and the worst thing was there was no water for the first five miles."
Of course, running for charity – even in tough conditions – is hardly new, but with this race you get to see how your money is being spent. Street Child's work has had some huge successes – such as Obai Koroma, who was a prostitute at 13 but now, through the charity, is a driver in one of the mines. It was an amazing way to see a country, and an amazing challenge for committed runners – and novices like me.
• Find out more at sierraleonemarathon.com and donate at justgiving.com/lisaocarroll.
Lisa O'Carrollguardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Why now is a better time than ever to volunteer
Charities need to work together to ensure that the Olympic volunteering spirit doesn't just fizzle out
Last year the Olympic Games took place in London and suddenly, volunteering became fashionable. The success of the Games Makers ensured the spotlight was firmly directed on the numerous people willing to give time and energy to make a difference.
This is fantastic, particularly since it inadvertently shone a light on volunteering more generally and its benefits. However, inevitably, in the digital age people's attention spans are short, and their interests are ephemeral.
People were happy to ride the wave of excitement during the event and marvel at the volunteers' enthusiasm. But the Games ended and people moved on. As did, it seemed, the idea of volunteering.
According to research commissioned by CSV last September, 3.4 million people were inspired to volunteer as a result of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games. This is what we must remember and build upon: charities and other organisations should do all they can to enhance and raise the status of volunteers. The value and impact of volunteering is hugely important and we need to make that clear if we're to engage a younger audience in volunteering, particularly given today's volatile job market.
Cynics will say that people were eager to volunteer for the Games solely due to the nature of the event: a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
However, our message is clear. The benefits experienced through volunteering for the Olympics are the same as those experienced in other volunteering roles – whether it's making someone less isolated, helping a child with their reading, or keeping a disabled person mobile around their home. This is why we won't let this new volunteering spirit fizzle out. Volunteering will go from strength to strength, because as we know – it works. It is essential to the physical and mental health of many people, has a great impact on people who benefit and can reduce the burdens on other services.
So by active collaboration between the volunteering campaigns launched to maintain the magic and momentum of last year's Games such as Join In, Britain's Personal Best, Give More and our own Make a Difference campaign, a sustainable link can be made between the contributions of those unsung citizens who are doing great work in their communities and those who were inspired to volunteer as a result of the Games.
Harnessing this renewed enthusiasm in volunteering should not only drive greater recognition for the millions of existing volunteers in the UK but will strengthen the impact of all the campaigns to increase volunteering opportunities and build stronger communities.
Everyone has something to offer. That's why charities should use Volunteers Week, and the Make A Difference campaign later this year, as the opportunity to get inspired and start thinking about volunteering.
By working alongside the Olympic legacy programmes and promoting all our organisations, we can develop new opportunities and outlets for people's willingness to give time, skills and energy.
Together we can ensure that people, no matter their age or background, can continue to make a contribution to their communities. At a time of tight resources to fund these programmes, joint working is the only way to have the greatest impact and encourage more people to become involved. If we want to maintain the momentum of volunteering, we need to collaborate. Mutual support and respect should be the watchwords for the sector so we can demonstrate that volunteering and social action can make a real difference.
Oonagh Aitken is director of social action and volunteering at CSV.
This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To join the voluntary sector network, click here.
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
How can volunteer centres become more sustainable?
Volunteer centres must adapt and innovate in order to generate extra revenue
A new smartcard designed to make volunteering easier and potentially bring in extra revenue for volunteer centres is being launched by Staffordshire Moorland Community and Voluntary Services (SMCVS).
It's just one of the ways that volunteering centres are trying to be more sustainable, as the NCVO releases a new report that shows how deep the cuts to volunteering centres are.
In 2011-12, 40% of centres experienced cuts overall and the number receiving central government funding dropped from 24% to 7%, the Annual Return for Volunteer Centres report revealed last week. The smartcard project in Staffordshire, called I'm a Volunteer, get me in NOW – is one of eight CVS ideas chosen by NESTA through its Innovation in Giving Fund. Last month, NESTA picked initiatives that would receive up to £50,000 for ideas that take volunteering into a new age.
The smartcard project aims to break down barriers to volunteering by issuing a photo ID card to anyone who wants to volunteer so that there is minimal bureaucracy and form filling on their volunteering journey.
Companies will pay about £10-£15 for a card for each of the people in their staff volunteering programmes, and other volunteers, such as students and those looking to get back into work, will get a free card.
"Businesses already pay through CSR budgets for volunteering schemes, so we know there is the money for this," says Tracy Ellis, project manager of the project for SMCVS.
"We don't have the funds to be sustainable anymore, so we have to think of new ways. Things are changing, evolving. Local funding has decreased and we have to be business-minded to survive in this kind of climate," she adds.
According to the report, the average amount of funding received by a centre last year was £52,500 – nearly £4,000 less than the previous year.
Blackburn and Darwen (BDCVS), one of the larger CVSs, lost £100,000 central government cash last year but has won £50,000 NESTA funding for its innovation in giving idea.
The concept – a Community Hive – is being pioneered by Kate Lee, manager at the CVS. Under the project skilled volunteers support young local businesses in their early days, while the businesses pledge to offer something back, such as a donation or training at a later date.
Geoff Wilkinson, previously a volunteer at the CVS and an ex-civil service employee, has been taken on to manage the NESTA project in Blackburn. "We're relying on winning these kinds of bids now because of all the cuts," he says.
He also hopes the NESTA programme will bring more attention nationally and locally to what volunteer centres do for their communities. "In this economic climate, where jobs and funding are scarce, volunteering centres can help get people off the unemployment list, and they are helping run more and more local services. We are trying to deal with increased demand and less money in an innovative way," says Wilkinson.
Justin Davis Smith, head of NCVO, says volunteer centres are doing good work on diversifying resources. "But it's crucial that all volunteer centres have the chance to develop new ways of working and income sources… sudden and sharp funding cuts make this harder to achieve," he says.
The NCVO survey showed that 40% of volunteer centres that submitted data for both years lost over a quarter of their income compared to the previous year. One in five had half or more of their income cut. For just over a quarter, funding increased. Local government remains the most common source of funding, with 83% of volunteer centres receiving money.
"Local and central government need to recognise the importance of the sector and the fact that it really does need investment," says Davis Smith. It's very self-defeating not to invest because relatively small sums of money can unleash a lot of potential."
He said there would be a trend towards charging business and others who can afford it for the services offered by volunteering centres.
"The sector also needs to get better at demonstrating impact, such as how many people we get into work and how much we save the public purse, so we can persuade people of the value of investment in volunteering centres," explained Davis Smith.
"We are working with the people furthest from the labour market. The sector gets one in five people back into work – that's good in comparison to some of the official work programmes," he added.
Richard Leaman, chief executive of Guide Dogs, says several of the charity's mobility teams use volunteer centres to recruit and he is keen they continue. "More and more people are sourcing their volunteering opportunities online… but, I feel it is imperative that volunteering centres do not lose the personal touch that they currently offer local communities.
"This face-to-face service approach is extremely appealing to many groups of people who are attracted to volunteering."
This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To join the voluntary sector network, click here.
Claudia Cahalaneguardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Guardian charity awards 2013: Excellence below the radar
Wednesday sees the launch of our competition for small, pioneering charities whose work often goes unnoticed
For Oxford-based social enterprise Aspire, winning a 2012 Guardian charity award was recognition of its trainees' exceptional work, in the face of discrimination and prejudice, providing decorating services; commercial grounds and garden maintenance; recycling and removals.
Six months on, Jane Harris, Aspire's head of fundraising, says: "We believe our trainees are exceptional people; resourceful, resilient and tenacious to have overcome substance abuse, or homelessness or a criminal record, and to be able to deliver successful Aspire services. And the Guardian award endorses our view."
The Public Law Project, another 2012 winner, which last month won a landmark ruling against the Department for Work and Pensions' fitness-for-work tests for people with mental health problems, says the accolade was a "stamp of approval" for its work in challenging public sector policies that have a detrimental impact on marginalised people.
"The award was a huge boost to staff morale and to the management committee, and a stamp of approval," says Adrian Lukes, events and resources development manager at the small charity, set up 20 years ago.
Since their launch in 1992, the Guardian charity awards have recognised more than 80 small, innovative charities. In their 21st year, the awards, now in association with Zurich, continue to shine a light on pioneering organisations that are addressing a myriad little-known social welfare issues that fall below the public radar.
David Brindle, the Guardian's public services editor and chair of judges says: "Year after year, I and my fellow judges are astounded – and geniunely humbled – by what organisations are achieving on a shoestring."
Judith Moran, director of Quaker Social Action, says winning last year with its project, Down to Earth, which addresses "funeral poverty", had a huge impact externally. "It gave us the credibility to talk about funeral poverty and a place at the table. We have been invited to talk to MPs," she says.
Moran plans to use the award as leverage with funders to get a dedicated campaigner on funeral poverty. Moreover, she says it has shifted her ambition for the project. "Our main focus was on the period between death and the funeral, but winning the Guardian award made us realise that we needed to provide post-funeral support. After a bereavement, people often find themselves in debt because, for example, they had to keep the heating on a lot, or take a lot of taxis to hospital when their loved one was dying, and they may have to make new benefit claims, so we need to help people to get back on to an even keel."
For Jane Powell, director of Calm (the Campaign Against Living Miserably), the recognition was important for the supporters and trustees of the fledgling campaign to raise awareness that suicide is the biggest killer of men under 35 in the UK. "It vindicated them putting in their time and resources," she says.
It is a tough economic climate for small charities as they try to mitigate the impact of cuts in public services on their clients, while at the same time, their own income is often shrinking as donations from the public fall. The profile and kudos that the Guardian charity awards bestow on winners – who have to stand out from almost 1,000 entries – can give them a signifant leg up.
"I think the award played a part in the growing income we are receiving from the public," says Powell. "Although sadly part of this is simply [due to] the volume of male suicides."
Harris says that since May 2012, Aspire's contracts have tripled from seven to 24 and increased in value by 300%, and it has been able to support 40% more (160) trainees. "The Guardian award increased confidence in us," she says. "The judges marked us out as being a well-run, cost-efficient outfit, and everyone is now looking for value for money."
How to enterThe Guardian charity awards 2013, in association with Zurich, are open today for small, social welfare charities that can demonstrate excellence and achievement. Entrants must have been registered in the UK for more than two years and have an annual income of between £5,000 and £1.5m. The awards are supported by the FSI, which provides free capacity-building for small charities, IT company, Jigsaw24, Media Trust and the National Council for Voluntary Organisations.
The judging panel chaired by the Guardian's public services editor, David Brindle, includes Jane Asher, president, National Autistic Society and Lynne Berry, deputy chair, Canal and River Trust.
The five winners will receive an equal share of the £25,000 prize fund kindly donated by awards partner Zurich, plus a mini iPad courtesy of Jigsaw24, tailored packages of support from the FSI and Media Trust, and one year's free NCVO membership.
The closing date for entries is Friday 19 July. Winners will be presented with their awards at a ceremony in London on 3 December.
Alison Benjaminguardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Digital tools that put you in charge of the training your charity needs
Training staff is critical to delivering high quality services – and a new digital platform could help
The environment in which charities and social enterprises are working is tough and rapidly changing. Organisations know they need to adapt and develop their skills to meet these challenges. However, it is hard to know what training and development is needed, and where to find and share high quality, affordable and flexible training. This is what the Skills Platform is trying to address.
This year's Skills-Third Sector Workforce Almanac shows that more than half of voluntary sector employers who provide training want to provide more but are unable to do so, while 18% do not train staff at all, citing a lack of funding and time constraints as the main barriers.
With little hope of the sector's income going up, charities and social enterprises face a challenging operating environment. For service-delivery charities, the focus understandably remains on frontline activities and ensuring good outcomes, while funds for training are often pushed down the pecking order. Recent reports show that the sector spent £400m less on staff costs in 2010-11 than they did in the previous 12 months.
Just to survive, the social sector must tighten its purse strings while trying desperately to sustain positive outcomes for their beneficiaries. The nature of working with hard-to-reach social groups, who are often vulnerable or more adversely affected by the economic climate, means demand for services is likely to increase, and it is vital that this demand can be met.
At the same time, the nature of how charities need to engage with service users, commissioners, donors and wider communities is shifting. Advances in technology and a growing emphasis on the use of the internet means there is a need for staff to be proficient in digital skills. These are just a few of the challenges organisations face, with others outlined in the recently published Dame Mary Marsh Review.
Training and developing staff and volunteers is critical if the social sector is to rise to meet these challenges. Over the past year, we have talked to charities, social enterprises and training providers to understand the barriers to accessing skills and to develop practical solutions that really work for the sector.
Our research showed that organisations understand that to be able to deliver high-quality services, grow and succeed, charities and social enterprises cannot ignore giving their staff and volunteers more skills. They know that without the right training, employees will struggle to deal with increasing workloads or grow in their roles. But adequate and affordable training is hard to come by, and making informed comparisons in training available to charities can be frustrating or even impossible. Beyond this, many organisations recognise that they have skills and training opportunities that they could be sharing, but don't have a mechanism for reaching each other.
To help address these challenges, we are co-designing a new solution, a digital platform where organisations can easily find and compare training and access other skills support. Recommendations and experiences are now being gathered and analysed through our microsite, and we really need organisations from across the sector, as well as those providing training in the sector, to contribute their views and experiences so we can build something that really works.
Already, organisations have told us that they want to be able to share spaces on in-house training, access easily understandable profiles of training providers, read reviews and be able to search to find the right training at the right price in the right area.
The co-design process will culminate in the launch of a new digital training marketplace in September, drawing together the best digital solutions from across the web with the experience and needs of the charities and social enterprises who will use it.
So far, the co-design process has shown us that it is only through innovation and sharing expertise that we can truly revolutionise training for charities and social enterprises. It is time for charities to take training in their own hands.
Keith Mogford is chief executive of Skills – Third Sector.
This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To join the voluntary sector network, click here.
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Keep up to date
Advertisement
Latest advertorials
UK Fundraising Social Links
Your UK Fundraising
UK Fundraising - improving the effectiveness of charity and non-profit fundraisers
