As reported in Third Sector In a speech to NCVO members Simon Jenkins questioned the voluntary sector's role in a democratic society, in terms of what they contribute to, in particular, local democracy. As someone who sat on a Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) for a number of years, and was Chair of a Community Network and vice-Chair of the LSP, I have to say that in a number of ways, he has a point. The problem with local democracy has been, for some time, the lack of participation of local people, with turn outs at local elections commonly being as low as 20%, and research showing particularly poor participation by 'excluded groups' - black and minority ethnic people, refugees, disabled people, older people, etc. The idea of including voluntary and community groups into local partnerships was clearly to improve community involvement with local planning and development, but there are fundamental problems with this. Whilst not wishing to 'do down' anyone involved in a community network or an LSP representing voluntary/community groups, who elected them? I know I was elected by the Community Network Committee, mainly because no one else wanted to do it, and as CEO of the local CVS I felt I ought to (as did my management committee). Obviously I tried my best to represent those I was there to represent, but then again, who were they? Other members of the committee, in many cases professional voluntary sector workers themselves. Everyone with very good intentions, but really, not very democratically elected. And when we tried to involve new good community activists into the Community Network structures, they, quite reasonably, ran a mile when they realised what was expected of them (and how dull the whole thing was).
The other side of this argument however is that the elected councillors were usually only elected by a couple of hundred people who were often the local middle class. Many of whom were friends of the local councillor or friends of friends etc, and contributed very little to local community life. So they aren't very representative either.
However, as proven by what happened in Islington (for this is where I experienced this) the advantage of democracy is that when the Council is led by an unpleasant twit (and their equally unpleasant sidekick) who appears to be only interested in advancing their own career at the expense of local people and their services (sidekick ditto) local people are free and able to vote them out. As they did. (Boy did we celebrate).
So what is the answer - probably, as Simon Jenkins intimates, improvements to local democracy - investment in local democracy, and simply, better systems. The changes implemented in recent years (getting elected mayors, paid leaderships etc) have actually served to lessen local democracy, giving greater power to fewer people. The introduction of LSPs might appear to reduce this power (and probably does via implementation of LAAs) but does this result in an increase in democracy?
Thursday 27 November 2008
Chuggers
Well done Intelligent Giving who have publicly exposed how unpleasant and badly delivered and managed 'face to face fundraising' (chugging to you and me) is in the real world, and boo to the PFRA who have attacked Intelligent Giving, saying that their methods were 'unfair', 'unprofessional' and 'damaging'. The responses on the Intelligent Giving website from fundraisers is something to be seen. Have you ever heard such a bunch of self-serving parasitic twerps defending lousy practice? No, nor me.
Fundraisers inevitably defend themselves by showing how much money is made from what they do. Many charities, they claim, wouldn't survive without this sort of fundraising. (Not that they have a vested interest of course). But is this so? I have seen some statistics that show that chugging raises money, but I have never seen NET statistics with all the costs of the fundraisers and the agencies etc taken out. Never, either, have I seen figures showing how much charities who don't use chugging do worse... And strangely, never have I seen statistics showing how a chugger who uses aggressive tactics in breach of the law (as described by IG and as experienced on a daily basis by most of us) raises more money than someone behaving in a socially acceptable way. (THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN! shout the fundraisers. What world do they live in?) Nor have I seen anything convincing that shows that this sort of behaviour doesn't damage a charity's reputation.
Get over it. People don't like being chugged. It is NOT the same as being asked to buy a copy of the Big Issue, it is not the same as being asked to put a few bob in a collector's tin outside Sainsbury's. It is exactly what it seems - an aggressive approach to get money in the street, invented entirely because people have got wise to the unpleasantness of those other fundraising methods,and mainly learned how to ignore, direct mail and direct telephone fundraising.
So here's a challenge to fundraisers: be inventive and come up with a method of fundraising that doesn't want to make me, and millions like me, want to punch you in the face.
Fundraisers inevitably defend themselves by showing how much money is made from what they do. Many charities, they claim, wouldn't survive without this sort of fundraising. (Not that they have a vested interest of course). But is this so? I have seen some statistics that show that chugging raises money, but I have never seen NET statistics with all the costs of the fundraisers and the agencies etc taken out. Never, either, have I seen figures showing how much charities who don't use chugging do worse... And strangely, never have I seen statistics showing how a chugger who uses aggressive tactics in breach of the law (as described by IG and as experienced on a daily basis by most of us) raises more money than someone behaving in a socially acceptable way. (THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN! shout the fundraisers. What world do they live in?) Nor have I seen anything convincing that shows that this sort of behaviour doesn't damage a charity's reputation.
Get over it. People don't like being chugged. It is NOT the same as being asked to buy a copy of the Big Issue, it is not the same as being asked to put a few bob in a collector's tin outside Sainsbury's. It is exactly what it seems - an aggressive approach to get money in the street, invented entirely because people have got wise to the unpleasantness of those other fundraising methods,and mainly learned how to ignore, direct mail and direct telephone fundraising.
So here's a challenge to fundraisers: be inventive and come up with a method of fundraising that doesn't want to make me, and millions like me, want to punch you in the face.
Sunday 2 November 2008
Sponsored moustaches
It's a completely screwed up world we live in where the only way people will give money to charities is by somebody else doing something pointless. I agree also that it's a strange world where some of the money you might give pays for that other person's holiday, or even their entry fee to run a marathon. A friend has asked me today to donate money to a prostate cancer charity her partner is supporting by.... growing a moustache. The campaign is at http://www.movember.com/ I am happy to support a prostate cancer charity. I am less happy to support proliferation of moustaches in the world. In the same way, I am not happy to pay for someone's sponsored trek, by paying for them to pollute the world by flying to Peru. On the other hand I'm going to donate, as I've donated to other people running marathons and things. I wish they'd stop though, and just asked me to donate to a worthy cause because they need the money, not because they want to grow a moustache, run 26 miles or whatever...
Meanwhile, I thoroughly recommend THIS website:
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Moustache
Meanwhile, I thoroughly recommend THIS website:
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Moustache
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)