Charity grading system
This is an interesting blog post from concrete solutions cic, looking at the whole issue of a 'charity grading' system to rate the performance of charities to help build public confidence - recently suggested by New Philanthropy Capital. It raises some interestng issues, and this bit stood out for me in relation to the way funders can and do view much of the voluntary sector:
Too much of what goes on in the name of accountability is an
ongoing assumption of organisational guilt, until innocence can
be determined by those making the judgment in the first place.
A concept that has been central to historical ideas of
accountability – trust – has been all-but-forgotten in the
current culture of market-dominated methods of measurement in
the social sphere.What if funders were to take a more personally motivated attempt
to ‘get to know’ their recipients? What if a significant part
of the time spent on paperwork, was spent working with grant
recipients to find out how they felt they knew they had achieved
impact in their work? What if this meant funders being sent a
video of a recent street dance performance, featuring interviews
with the participants? What if it meant an invitation to attend
a presentation and board meeting of the organisation in
question? What if it meant direct contact between grant
administrators and those who had received services as a result
of their funding?Personal interactions (as opposed to institutional ones, such as
form letters and other generic communications) can fundamentally
change the dynamics between a funder and those who receive
funding. Just as most of us are more likely to pay back money
we have borrowed from a friend on time, than we are if we
borrowed it from a credit card company (penalties aside), the
likelihood of improved accountability if a relationship is
developed between funder and recipient works along similar
lines. Trust is a powerful motivating force; more so even than
the ongoing sense of worry that tends to characterise most
funding relationships, from the recipient’s perspective.
Full blog posts here.
Thanks Jamie for flagging this up - written a blog post about this issue. I think it ties into the much of the current debate (that's ongoing since quite a few years back now :-)) about the measurement of impact of volunteering and the efficiency approach to the voluntary sector in general.
Here's the last few lines: The issue of trust, I think, brings us back to the importance of the connection and relationship between the giver and the receiver. In terms of giving, the relationship is everything whoever the givers and receivers are: government, business, citizens, state, civil society organisations, etc. For a system based on commodity exchange within a free market, comparison is everything, especially where your relationship with the prospective providers is weak or non-existent. However, for a system based on giving, the relationship you have with those you give to or receive from is everything.
In the end, the efficiency of volunteering and of the voluntary sector, can only make sense in the context of the personal relationships and connections that the giving and receiving between the stakeholders involved makes possible. What we are looking for are new ways to understand the significance and meaning of these relationships and make decisions collectively and individually about them.
How the state supports the voluntary sector and volunteering is a very live issue which has to do with how we value the role of giving in our society and the common good. It's not an issue that can be decided by resorting to arbitrary and confusing measures that institutionalise assumptions about the nature of social impact and economic efficiency.