Monday, 19 April 2010
Building Our Futures Report now available for download
The Building Our Futures report is now available, in Word and PDF format, for download. Also available (and more digestible) is a summary report. The report looks at employment issues within Disabled People's Organisations (DPOs) and concludes that more investment in DPOs' infrastructure and HR is necessary to ensure the sustainability of these valuable organisations. For more details see the report itself. Download from www.toosh.org.uk/bof.htm.
Thursday, 26 November 2009
Accountability - charities and banks
Charities publish detailed accounts, and as recipients of millions of pounds' worth of public money, declare the salaries of staff earning over £50,000 a year. Meanwhile, UK banks receive BILLIONS of pounds of taxpayers' money and won't declare details of staff who earn over £1 million a year. Hmmm, something inequitable there, don't you think?
Furthermore, for what reason will banks not declare their over-paid employees' income? Because, they say, such practices may drive them abroad. Yes, you have it right, the last thing we want to do is lose those fantastic employees who contribute, and have contributed, so much to the UK's wealth. Yes, those high-powered-high-fliers are just what the UK economy needs, after all it wasn't their fault that the banks collapsed and dragged the whole world into a recession, was it? Oh, it was? Sorry, I must have missed something.
In that case, why don't we just publish their names and drive them abroad, because actually the UK doesn't need people like that at all, bye bye - or if that's too upsetting at least threaten to unless they are prepared to donate their millions to charities.
Arrogant greedy bastards.
Furthermore, for what reason will banks not declare their over-paid employees' income? Because, they say, such practices may drive them abroad. Yes, you have it right, the last thing we want to do is lose those fantastic employees who contribute, and have contributed, so much to the UK's wealth. Yes, those high-powered-high-fliers are just what the UK economy needs, after all it wasn't their fault that the banks collapsed and dragged the whole world into a recession, was it? Oh, it was? Sorry, I must have missed something.
In that case, why don't we just publish their names and drive them abroad, because actually the UK doesn't need people like that at all, bye bye - or if that's too upsetting at least threaten to unless they are prepared to donate their millions to charities.
Arrogant greedy bastards.
Tuesday, 6 October 2009
Tories, Saving Money for the Rich, and Contracts for public services
Suddenly this is back on the agenda in a bigger way than ever before. Why? It's not as if there hasn't been a move in this direction for a number of years now, with greater 3rd sector involvement in delivery of commissioned services at local regional and national level. The answer is obvious when you think about it: Tories. Whatever misgivings anyone may have about New Labour's move to the right, encouragement of PPP (that's private/public/partnerships), PFI (that's Private Finance Initiatives) and the involvement in the voluntary and community sector (Hey, I'll go with the flow and use VCS) in delivering public services on the cheap, Labour are amateurs compared to the Tories.
This week is Tory conference time, and the recession has really allowed those old tories to come out of their shells. It has given the right in the Tory party the chance to propagate their policies of Government's 'lighter hand', of LESS public services (for the poor) saving MORE money (for the rich). Hey, we wouldn't want to alienate the bankers would we? So what do the Tories come out with this week - first cuts to benefits for disabled people, secondly, cuts to pensions, thirdly cuts to public services. Of course these are slightly dressed up. Let's have a look.
1. Cuts to benefits for disabled people - well no this isn't what it is at all, is it? This will be a policy to encourage disabled people into jobs, and discourage them from living off the state - a good thing surely? NO: this may sound reasonable, but in real life this isn't what happens. and what would happen. Disabled people to be assessed (by who - oh god no, not the same idiots who screw up mobility allowances surely - Oh yes) whether the CAN work. If so they get a job. Simples. Except if you have a disability that flairs up only part of the time (there are millions of examples), then how are you judged? Except what jobs, in times of high unemployment ARE you going to get? Er... yes, this is simply a way of cutting benefits for the most vulnerable members of our community. WELL DONE YOU TORY BASTARDS.
2. Cutting pensions: no no no no no, there won't be cuts to pensions, you just won't get one until you are 66, instead of 65. Wait a minute, that means a year's less pension for everyone... several thousands pounds less for older people. Another group of the most vulnerable people in our society. WELL DONE AGAIN.
3.Cuts to public services: NO, we just want the voluntary sector to deliver services, because they'll do them SO much better than the public sector and SO much cheaper (shhh, don't tell anyone that bit). So what we will have is services delivered on the cheap, with costs kept as low as possible to ensure contracts are won. How are these costs kept low? Well it won't be bureaucracy (got to pay those CEOs somehow), so it will be done in two ways: by subsidising services through other funds: Yes that's what you gave your donation to charity for isn't it? For delivery of public services. Wait a minute isn't that what you paid your tax for? And by keeping wages low. Which a lot of large unscrupulous charities will be able to do because their staff aren't unionised and there are no collective agreements in place and because there will be no shortage of cheap labour (Hey, there's all those cripples looking for jobs, they'll be cheap, and we'll look great!).
Most sickening of all is the stupidity of people in senior positions in the VCS who think there's nothing wrong with this. They love the 'contract culture', it makes the voluntary sector 'modern', 'effective' and 'efficient'. Silly fools, can't you see you are being conned? The Tories can't get elected if they're seen as being too right wing, but they can get elected if they manage to con the british public into believing their crap. They are trying to con people into believing they are 'new' Tories, 'caring' Tories. But efficient, responsible Tories, not like bumbler Brown. I'm no Labour supporter (I'm a socialist, obviously) but even I can see what a horrible option the Tories are.
So where does that put the suck-up sector? ACEVO and their like? Are they Tories themselves, or are they stupid? The fact they employ a series of policy officers with no 'at the coal-face' experience gives you no confidence in them, the fact that they spend so much time aggrandising themselves doesn't help either.
People in Britain want good public services. They want good health services, good education services, efficiently managed hospitals, schools, universities, prisons, nurseries etc. If anyone bothers to analyse services to actually see what is good and what is bad, there is one thing in common: they are well managed, they are responsive, they are accountable, they are run and delivered by committed staff. What difference does it make what sector they are in? Very little, except that it is obvious services get worse when costs are cut: when staff are underpaid and demoralised and there is no top down commitment to the service but a commitment instead to low costs, to the bottom line. Unfortunately that's the route successive governments have taken: and the joke is that thousands of billions of pounds have been siphoned off into the private sector who proceeded to blow it all in their banks that they couldn't manage.
The VCS has been forced into a position where it has to play the game to some extent, but it doesn't have to cheer along on the sidelines, and it should draw a line somewhere. The fear that some dodgy newly-developed Public Interest Company ( a private organisation in disguise) will get a contract if the VCS doesn't bid should be, in many cases, dismissed. In the long run the shit WILL hit the fan: for example the poor over-priced health services being delivered by PCIs won't last the pace. Does the sector really want to join in this service suicide? I look forward to the day when a charity running a prison (or whatever) has to publicly explain how so many prisoners escaped/were abused (or whatever). No doubt they will moan it was lack of funds that caused the problem.... HELLO-O!! That's why you got the contract, fool.
Running a charity is political (whatever the Charity Commission say). Back two paragraphs ago I said people want good services. When chasing a contract Charities' trustees should ask themselves: Can you really do it? Will it benefit the public? Will it benefit society? Will you have to compromise your values to do it? Could someone else do it better? Will it benefit the Charity? Are you sure?
This week is Tory conference time, and the recession has really allowed those old tories to come out of their shells. It has given the right in the Tory party the chance to propagate their policies of Government's 'lighter hand', of LESS public services (for the poor) saving MORE money (for the rich). Hey, we wouldn't want to alienate the bankers would we? So what do the Tories come out with this week - first cuts to benefits for disabled people, secondly, cuts to pensions, thirdly cuts to public services. Of course these are slightly dressed up. Let's have a look.
1. Cuts to benefits for disabled people - well no this isn't what it is at all, is it? This will be a policy to encourage disabled people into jobs, and discourage them from living off the state - a good thing surely? NO: this may sound reasonable, but in real life this isn't what happens. and what would happen. Disabled people to be assessed (by who - oh god no, not the same idiots who screw up mobility allowances surely - Oh yes) whether the CAN work. If so they get a job. Simples. Except if you have a disability that flairs up only part of the time (there are millions of examples), then how are you judged? Except what jobs, in times of high unemployment ARE you going to get? Er... yes, this is simply a way of cutting benefits for the most vulnerable members of our community. WELL DONE YOU TORY BASTARDS.
2. Cutting pensions: no no no no no, there won't be cuts to pensions, you just won't get one until you are 66, instead of 65. Wait a minute, that means a year's less pension for everyone... several thousands pounds less for older people. Another group of the most vulnerable people in our society. WELL DONE AGAIN.
3.Cuts to public services: NO, we just want the voluntary sector to deliver services, because they'll do them SO much better than the public sector and SO much cheaper (shhh, don't tell anyone that bit). So what we will have is services delivered on the cheap, with costs kept as low as possible to ensure contracts are won. How are these costs kept low? Well it won't be bureaucracy (got to pay those CEOs somehow), so it will be done in two ways: by subsidising services through other funds: Yes that's what you gave your donation to charity for isn't it? For delivery of public services. Wait a minute isn't that what you paid your tax for? And by keeping wages low. Which a lot of large unscrupulous charities will be able to do because their staff aren't unionised and there are no collective agreements in place and because there will be no shortage of cheap labour (Hey, there's all those cripples looking for jobs, they'll be cheap, and we'll look great!).
Most sickening of all is the stupidity of people in senior positions in the VCS who think there's nothing wrong with this. They love the 'contract culture', it makes the voluntary sector 'modern', 'effective' and 'efficient'. Silly fools, can't you see you are being conned? The Tories can't get elected if they're seen as being too right wing, but they can get elected if they manage to con the british public into believing their crap. They are trying to con people into believing they are 'new' Tories, 'caring' Tories. But efficient, responsible Tories, not like bumbler Brown. I'm no Labour supporter (I'm a socialist, obviously) but even I can see what a horrible option the Tories are.
So where does that put the suck-up sector? ACEVO and their like? Are they Tories themselves, or are they stupid? The fact they employ a series of policy officers with no 'at the coal-face' experience gives you no confidence in them, the fact that they spend so much time aggrandising themselves doesn't help either.
People in Britain want good public services. They want good health services, good education services, efficiently managed hospitals, schools, universities, prisons, nurseries etc. If anyone bothers to analyse services to actually see what is good and what is bad, there is one thing in common: they are well managed, they are responsive, they are accountable, they are run and delivered by committed staff. What difference does it make what sector they are in? Very little, except that it is obvious services get worse when costs are cut: when staff are underpaid and demoralised and there is no top down commitment to the service but a commitment instead to low costs, to the bottom line. Unfortunately that's the route successive governments have taken: and the joke is that thousands of billions of pounds have been siphoned off into the private sector who proceeded to blow it all in their banks that they couldn't manage.
The VCS has been forced into a position where it has to play the game to some extent, but it doesn't have to cheer along on the sidelines, and it should draw a line somewhere. The fear that some dodgy newly-developed Public Interest Company ( a private organisation in disguise) will get a contract if the VCS doesn't bid should be, in many cases, dismissed. In the long run the shit WILL hit the fan: for example the poor over-priced health services being delivered by PCIs won't last the pace. Does the sector really want to join in this service suicide? I look forward to the day when a charity running a prison (or whatever) has to publicly explain how so many prisoners escaped/were abused (or whatever). No doubt they will moan it was lack of funds that caused the problem.... HELLO-O!! That's why you got the contract, fool.
Running a charity is political (whatever the Charity Commission say). Back two paragraphs ago I said people want good services. When chasing a contract Charities' trustees should ask themselves: Can you really do it? Will it benefit the public? Will it benefit society? Will you have to compromise your values to do it? Could someone else do it better? Will it benefit the Charity? Are you sure?
Thursday, 21 May 2009
Summer Events for Disabled People's Organisations (DPOs)
This summer, as part of the Building Our Futures project, six events are being organised for DPOs in London. They all range around employment issues in DPOs, in line with the reseach part of the project, and are organised in response to the research - meeting identified needs.
They include three network events - one for workers, one for Chief Officers and one for chairs of management committees (Trustees), and three training events - managing performance, managing sickness and managing Access to Work. So far the events are proving popular, but there are still some places left, so if you want to book a place go to the website at www.toosh.co.uk/bof.htm and download a booking form. Information is there in Word and PDF format, and also in EayRead.
All events are fully accessible, and we will attempt to meet all attendees access needs if they book before the end of may (that's not to say it can't be done after that date).
They include three network events - one for workers, one for Chief Officers and one for chairs of management committees (Trustees), and three training events - managing performance, managing sickness and managing Access to Work. So far the events are proving popular, but there are still some places left, so if you want to book a place go to the website at www.toosh.co.uk/bof.htm and download a booking form. Information is there in Word and PDF format, and also in EayRead.
All events are fully accessible, and we will attempt to meet all attendees access needs if they book before the end of may (that's not to say it can't be done after that date).
Thursday, 27 November 2008
What DO partnerships add to democracy?
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?
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?
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)