The deciding factors in the Scottish referendum were all about emotion and not the rational arguments, no matter what politicians would have you believe.
Now that it is decided and the United Kingdom is still united, the experience of the campaign is a good reminder to charities that leading with the facts is not the right way to connect with and engage the public. The political noise and debate may have been all about the economy, the currency and the viability of an independent Scotland. But it all boiled down to how it made people feel.
More charities are seeking alternative ways to generate income. Gone are the days when the third sector was solely reliant on unsuspecting parties agreeing to donate “just two pounds a month”.
The government has slashed public sector spending, including the budget of local authorities. At risk of oversimplifying matters, local authorities have responded by outsourcing some of their services to charities and the private sector. Many charities have gone into public sector outsourcing blind; which in time could prove horrifically costly. Specifically, I am referring to the pension risk that can conveniently transfer to the contract-winning charity.
I believe in volunteering: both supporting it and, where possible, volunteering myself. The caveat “where possible” is important. Weeks slip away as I try to juggle work with desperate attempts to exercise, a growing stack of unread books, family demands and finding enough relaxation time to make the week manageable. Voluntary donation of time is difficult when more pressing activities dominate.
Despite these difficulties, the concept of corporate volunteering – the obligatory charity work which some employers require staff to take part in during working hours – initially left me with some reservations. Is volunteering still valid if you’re “made” to do it? I had also been exposed to criticism of the idea of corporate social responsibility, and was somewhat cynical about why a company might choose to be associated with one charity brand over another.
You could be forgiven for missing it, but this month was a big deal in the world of open data with the publication of 360 Giving’s Grant Navigator prototype. 360 Giving aims “to help UK grant makers and philanthropists to publish their grant information online in an easy-to-use way” and with their GrantNav tool they have put data about £22bn worth of grants into the public domain.
It is now possible to access the details of more than a quarter of a million different grants covering the past 20 years. You can search by funder or recipient, view some of the visualisations that are available or grab the data to play with yourself. It is, by their own admission, pretty rough and ready, but as a work in progress it offers a glimpse of the possibilities.
For some time now, the UK charity sector has been under pressure from government and from parts of the media that want to stop it speaking out. Just as the term “political correctness” is used not to highlight bureaucracy gone mad but to signpost that the speaker is about to come out with something objectionable, so “political” has become a term thrown at charities specifically to put them on the defensive.
We often read in the papers of cases where people have been accused of taking advantage of their position as “attorney”. A power of attorney is when one person is appointed by another to manage their affairs, should they not be mentally capable of doing so themselves because of illness or accident.
Just last month, in the case The Public Guardian v JW, a businessman had his power of attorney over his mother’s finances revoked after allegations of misconduct. But this case is one of many, as the courts often deal with unscrupulous characters who have used their positions as an attorney to transfer funds and assets from the person’s estate into their own name. The impact on charities? They’re losing out in cases where they had been set to inherit from the estate in a person’s will.
Last year I was invited by MP David Blunkett’s office to provide testimony in the Charities Aid Foundation’s Growing Giving inquiry, which is exploring the future of giving, charity, and philanthropy in the workplace. Intrigued and excited by the opportunity, I accepted and began preparing.
I’ve just been elected for the UK Independence Party as a member of the European Parliament. I’ve done voluntary and charitable work for a number of years, from setting up a charity working with disadvantaged young people to hospital radio broadcasting which I’ve done since I was 15.
I’ve fundraised for charities, worked on both a voluntary and paid basis delivering council holiday sports schemes for children and young people. I donate to several charities. My wife and I sponsor children in the developing world.
I have been a paid-up member of the Labour Party for more than 30 years and for most of that time I’ve worked in the charity sector, mainly with Christian Aid in various roles including head of advocacy. But throughout that time, I’ve felt uncomfortable about making the following statement:
“If you’re concerned about global development, you must vote Labour”.
I was disappointed to see our longest-serving volunteer award come in for criticism in an article by Rob Jackson on the Third Sector blog last week, particularly as it was National Volunteering Week. I want to correct the misconceptions about charity retail volunteering that it presented.
The purpose of the award is to celebrate the people who have donated countless hours to their chosen charity and to highlight the power, reward and life-changing opportunities that volunteering gives to people in charity shops. Most people know that charity shops are staffed by an army of volunteers, but very few know the hidden benefits of volunteering in a shop. Our award aims to tell those stories.