YouthNet blog
An insight into youth issues, volunteering trends, charity life and more from the UK charity YouthNet
All | Events | Youth | Technology | Volunteering | YouthNet | Charity World
Thursday Jul 24, 2008
Future of a free internet
Yesterday an article appeared on the BBC news site about the big ISP's in the UK signing some kind of deal with the UK Government to combat piracy. This morning it was headline news across BBC radio and television. Fergal Sharkey was asked for the music industry's view, but no one asked us consumers.
It's shocking and disappointing how a public broadcaster like the BBC frames the debate in such outdated and simplistic terms. It's at moments like this that it's possible to see just how out of step big media companies and organisations are with the issues that the rise of new media has thrown up for consumers. Their focus tends to always be on the issues new media throws up for themselves- not us. To coin a phrase: it's about privacy, not piracy stupid.
Rarely is consumer privacy raised as an issue in the music industry's war on piracy. Will ISP's be expected to handover personal data of their customers? How will illegal file sharing be defined when, for example, anyone can download mp3s of any music they like from prominent websites like Facebook and YouTube? What sanctions will they take against file sharers? Will young people increasingly see the internet as a constraint on their liberty, rather than liberating?
It's interesting to contrast the broadly sympathetic coverage that the BBC has given to the music industry's efforts to clamp down on file-sharing (hey, it's not just music that people share these days), with it's coverage of the development of deep packet inspection (deep packet what?) by the advertising industry "a system that tracks where people go on the web, and builds up a profile so it can serve up adverts based on what that person has seen" (BBC's Click presenter Spencer Kelly).
Yeh, deep packet inspection (DPI), it's the biggest issue in net neutrality at the moment and most people haven't heard a thing about it outside of the tech pages in old style mainstream broadcasters like the BBC. For the last two years the technology has been secretly trialled and is set to come on stream officially in the next month or so.
Both these issues raise questions of consumers' privacy, and both developments seem to suggest that consumer privacy should be sacrificed in the interest of corporate needs.
In May 2008 on BBC technology programme 'Click', the BBC interviewed Kent Ertegrul and Alex Hanff. Ertegrul who heads up Phorm- a company looking to profit from DPI technology- had his "most notable foray online was as the founder of PeopleOnPage, an ad network that operated earlier in the decade and which was blacklisted as spyware by the likes of Symantec and F-Secure".
Alex Hanff wrote his dissertation on the privacy issues of DPI technology with special reference to Phorm and has headed up the campaign against DPI in the UK. Hanff previously hit the headlines after being sacked from his job for airing pro file sharing views on BBC's Newsnight. He's also been the recipient of a lawsuit by Paramount, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal City Studios and Warner Bros back in 2005.
The head to head brought together the opposite ends of the spectrum in the modern privacy debate- that encompasses corporate spyware developers and file-sharing facilitators. It's a mainstream debate that is currently marginalised by mainstream broadcasters. But anyone interested in the future of freedom on the internet should be sitting up and taking plenty of notice.
Monday Jul 21, 2008
Half marathon training: What NOT to do
About three months ago, having recently returned from a holiday in Australia, full of energy and enthusiasm, and evidently have lost the power of rational thought, I agreed to run a half marathon to raise money for YouthNet. At the time, October seemed soooo far away, and I was in the depths of a health-kick, ready to (literally) hit the ground running. The feeling was...ummm...short lived.
Don't get me wrong, I'm still up for the challenge and am really pleased to be representing one of the best charities in the world (with one of the best softball teams I might add), and raising much-needed funds for a well-deserved cause. I just wish it had dawned on me before last week how much hard work it's going to be.
Having realised last week that I really need to get myself into gear and get training, I put together a training plan (a somewhat condensed training plan, owing to the fact I should have started a few weeks ago). I went for a couple of runs last week, which went well. Dragging yourself out of bed at 6am to run around Streatham Common isn't the easiest thing to do, but it's very satisfying when you manage it.
My first 'big' run was scheduled for yesterday. I was going to tackle a 7 miler, having managed 5 miles quite easily the previous week. Now, at about 5 o'clock yesterday, I kitted myself in my best running outfit, complete with water bottle and iPod and headed for the hills. All seemed well for the first...umm...mile and a bit.
I could say it was too hot, but it really wasn't. I could say it was raining, but that would also be lie. I could say I haven't been well lately, but that would again be utter rubbish. I learnt something yesterday...
White wine, double chocolate cheesecake and marathon training REALLY don't mix.
Please learn from my mistakes folks.
Good luck!
Posted by Sarah McCoy ( 4:07 PM ) Link to this post Comments[0]
Wednesday Jul 16, 2008
A penny for your thoughts? Young people, debt & finance
We ran a very topical presentation here at YouthNet alongside Citizens Advice, the Financial Services Authority and HM Treasury a few weeks ago. The theme was young people, debt and finance, and the presentation covered some key points about how debt impacts on their lives, where they find information on financial advice and what their understanding of financial terminology is.Most of what we covered was taken from a survey of 651 young people from TheSite.org. We got some great press coverage of the results of the survey, both here and in the USA, although interestingly (and perhaps not surprisingly), most articles chose to focus on one finding in particular – that 66% of young people surveyed agreed that it was too easy to get credit.
If you'd like a copy of the survey or want to hear more about the presentation, just drop us a line.
Tuesday Jul 08, 2008
Changes to YouthNet.org
If you're reading this blog entry on the YouthNet.org website (rather than on email or your RSS reader) you might notice that things look a bit different. The blog's centred for one thing. So's the whole website. On the front page, there are new 'latest news' links which scroll from one story to the next. And if you look towards the bottom of the page, there's a quote from one of our users or partners will change if you refresh the page.
There are also a couple of changes which you might not notice much, but which will help us better understand how people are using this website (such as the addition of the new Google Analytics code) and help us better process any queries we receive (through an improved contact us form). We've also changed the URL of the YouthNet blog feed, so that we can better monitor how many subscribers we have. If you've subscribed in the past, it'd be great if you could change over to using this new feed so we can include you in our stats. Using the new functionality, we'll also soon be creating RSS feeds for our job vacancies and press releases. I'll be back to let you know when these go live.
We've also introduced a sitemap, as another way of navigating round the site. Over the next few months, we'll also be taking a look at the content of YouthNet.org – making sure that it's easy to find what you need whether you've come to the site looking for information about running the Royal Park's Half Marathon or wanting to find out our current volunteering opportunities.
If you've got any feedback about the new features or have suggestions for the content/navigation review that will follow soon, please leave us a comment below.
Posted by Natasha Judd ( 11:46 AM ) Link to this post Comments[0]Pick me! Pick me!
When I was about 10 or 11 all I ever hoped for was a Blue Peter badge. They were the holy grail of children's television and I wanted one more than anything. Every time the show ran a competition I was positive that my painting, poem or photograph would be deemed worthy of a badge. I used to scream at Anthea Turner and Tim Vincent to "Say my name", but they never did.
I had to wait until I was 12 until I received a letter that contained what I'd always wanted. I'd entered a Blue Peter poster competition for the London Underground and had drawn a Beefeater with a tube sign in the background. It wasn't anything special but I thought I might as well send it in; they'd probably reward me for my persistency if not for my artistic talents.
Twelve years on and my hopes are slightly more demanding; a house, a car, a £10 million pound lottery win. Who knows, maybe if I scream loud enough I'll get these send in the post as well.
In TheSite.org's latest survey we want to know your hopes and fears. Let us know and you'll get your own prize, a £5 Amazon gift voucher.
Posted by Chris Denholm ( 10:56 AM ) Link to this post Comments[0]
Friday Jun 27, 2008
Do CRB checks deter volunteers?
Yesterday think-tank Civitas published a report that said adults are afraid to interact with children for fear of being labelled as paedophiles.
The Home Office rebuffed the report saying that there was no evidence that vetting deterred volunteers, and that CRBs had stopped 20,000 unsuitable people from gaining work with vulnerable individuals.
As someone who's been involved in recruiting volunteer youth leaders over a number of years, I think Civitas have a point; and the Home Office is being naïve if it thinks that requiring people to undertake a CRB doesn't deter otherwise suitable individuals.
It's also not exactly true to say there is no evidence – NCH and Chance UK did some research last year and discovered that 1 in 5 people from BME communities are deterred by the CRB. Children's Commissioner Sir Al Aynsley-Green also told the Home Affairs select committee that potential leaders are being put off by criminal record checks.
Requiring someone to disclose their criminal past is a big ask for any organisation; especially right at the start of the process of joining. By the age of 35, 1 in 5 adults have been convicted for a crime, and of those 84% will be male. That means that nearly 1 in 3 men in the UK aged 35+ have been prosecuted or cautioned for breaking the law (Source: Hansard: Col 139, 10 Dec 1996). Most of those offences are minor and insignificant when it comes to checking the suitability of the individual; but they are still declaring something that they may have not told partners, children or even their employers.
My experience of working with volunteers who have previous convictions – albeit for petty theft and benefit fraud – is that they feel highly ashamed of having this information made available. And this is for the ones who are prepared to undertake a CRB. Others simply decide not to apply, withdraw their application, or most likely simply no longer return calls when they are asked to declare their criminal records.
20,000 unsuitable people being stopped from working with vulnerable individuals is a good thing. But at the same time there has been a significant drop in the number of adults prepared to volunteer to work with young people. This can lead to young people having less structured out-of-school activities and ultimately to them spending more time on the streets where there are none of the safeguards that a youth group has.
It's difficult to see a solution, because I'm certainly not advocating removing the requirement for CRBs as part of the recruitment of youth leaders. But continuing to deny it is a problem is not going to solve the problem of a significant lack of volunteer youth leaders in this country.
Posted by Olly Benson ( 8:59 AM ) Link to this post Comments[13]
Wednesday Jun 11, 2008
And now for a bit of shameless plugging
YouthNet's do-it.org.uk is in the running for the Innovation category of the 2008 New Media Awards, run by New Statesman magazine. It's great to see such an impressive line-up in the nominations – once again, evidence of the real drive to use new media technologies to create positive social change.
Of course, we think do-it.org.uk's pretty special, and judging from the comments we've received so far, it has had an impact on a lot of others as well, making it easy for people throughout the UK to find their perfect volunteering opportunity.
Here's just one of them:
do it.org.uk is a great way of finding volunteering in your own area and helping to find opportunities to help others - its easy, simple, useful and fun to use, there is no better website out there for volunteering xxx
- Christele
If you'd like to leave your own comment of support, you can visit do-it.org.uk's entry on the New Statesman website.
And while I'm on the subject of awards, congratulations must go to the YouthNet Development Team who won Gold in the Fundraising Charity of the Year category of the Professional Fundraising Awards last month. Well done Development!
Posted by Natasha Judd ( 8:49 PM ) Link to this post Comments[0]
Tuesday Jun 10, 2008
Raising money from the web
My gut feeling is that really innovative trading schemes for charities are fairly few and far between at the moment – despite the increasingly blurred line between the for-profit and non-profit sectors, which presents huge opportunities (and threats) in this area for charities.
This is YouthNet's take on innovative trading – my colleague James and I gave this presentation at the Professional Fundraising conference at the end of May.
Obviously the slides won't make as much sense as they would accompanied by the scintillating, witty narrative that James and I delivered on the day, but hopefully you'll get the general idea.
Anyone else have any thoughts/comments/other examples of charities trading in innovative ways?
Monday Jun 02, 2008
Are the Emo kids on to something?
If I’d had nothing better to do on Saturday then I might have wandered down to Marble Arch to see a peculiar sight. Over 100 teenagers, fans of the band My Chemical Romance, turned up to hold a demonstration against the Daily Mail newspaper for what they feel is the unfaith portrayal of them and their “emo” subculture: particularly in relation to a recent suicide by a 13-year-old girl that the paper linked to the band.
Despite some, well, frankly schoolboy errors with the protest (the one day a week daily newspapers don’t work on is a Saturday and Northcliffe House, where the Mail is based, it down a side-street so they had to move the protest over a mile away) I genuinely was excited to see the protest taking place. Because it’s a sign that teenagers are getting restless, and the oft-reported apathy that young people are purported to have, is wearing thin.
I hope the protest galvanises the young people involved, and others, to up the ante when it comes to the fair representation of young people in the media. That 100 young people can generate a good deal of publicity probably comes down to the novelty of it and Saturday being a slow news day; but even if the Mail says it won’t change its stance protesting has made their readers more aware of the issue.
YouthNet and the BYC run the Respect campaign to try and ensure young people can respond to the negative portrayal of themselves in the media. Let’s hope this is a summer of fun…
Posted by Olly Benson ( 9:00 AM ) Link to this post Comments[0]
Thursday May 22, 2008
First thoughts on Google Friend Connect
Once upon a time, about five or six years ago years ago, Google was just my search engine. It allowed me to find things previously hidden on the vast and ever expanding world wide web. Then my friends discovered Googlewhacking – searching for a two word phrase that returned just one search result – and all the amusement that could be gained from entering a first name or a message board username into Googlism.
But, up until now at least, Google has not been my social network. Then, on Monday, Google announced a new service: Google Friend Connect.
The press release from Google states:
"With Google Friend Connect... any website owner can add a snippet of code to his or her site and get social features up and running immediately without programming - picking and choosing from built-in functionality like user registration, invitations, members gallery, message posting, and reviews, as well as third-party applications built by the OpenSocial developer community.Sounds good doesn't it. Sounds like a way to increase word-of-mouth promotion of your site, as members invite friends to join them on your website, as their actions – such as posting comments – are added to their social networking profiles. And there are advantages to users as well: a single log-in for any website which uses the Google FriendConnect service, for example, means no more remembering so many different passwords.
Visitors to any site using Google Friend Connect will be able to see, invite, and interact with new friends, or, using secure authorization APIs, with existing friends from social sites on the web, including Facebook, Google Talk, hi5, orkut, Plaxo, and more."
I can see this working on some websites. Google gives an example of a website about guacamole where users can rate recipes and give comments. I wouldn't care if my friends on Facebook knew what I thought about adding chillies to the dip.
However, on other sites, perhaps I'd rather be anonymous. I was thinking about TheSite.org this morning, and about how it's a great way for young people to find the information they need in a totally anonymous environment. Now say, I was to 'join' a website similar to TheSite.org using Friend Connect. When you set up a user profile, Google Friend Connect gives you the option of choosing a nickname to use on that particular website, and to nominate which social networks you'd like to broadcast your activity on. Say, I join the hypothetical website wanting to make a comment about a travel article – something I don't mind my friends knowing about, so I use my real name as a nickname and choose to link my activity on the site to Facebook. Then later I come back to the site and log-in. There's a 'settings' link where I could change my nickname and my social networking options, but I'm not automatically reminded about it. And say, I (being a hypothetical 'I' as well) then make a comment on an article about mental health or drugs – and suddenly this appears on my social networks: and then my friends know, and family members know, and colleagues know, and the whole benefit of the anonymous internet has been lost.
I was a member of MyBlogLog for a couple of weeks last year, before I started feeling uncomfortable about my icon appearing on the blogs I visited. While I thought it was unlikely that other users would want to follow my avatar through the blogosphere, building up a picture of my browsing history, there was always that chance...
When it comes down to it, I guess I'd like to keep my website browsing and my social networking separate. That's a personal choice and it's one that, as Google FriendConnect spreads, more and more of us might have to make. But installing the FriendConnect code on a website in the first place is also a choice, and one that is, despite the obvious marketing advantages it may bring to an organisation, worthy of further contemplation.
If you've got thoughts on any of this, feel free to leave a comment below.
(You don't have to use your real name).
Posted by Natasha Judd ( 4:45 PM ) Link to this post Comments[1]
Tuesday May 20, 2008
Farewell to Lesley
The last few months have seen a few changes at YouthNet. First of all we had the departure of Dom, our Digital Interactive Services Director – you can read about his memories of seeing Mickey Mouse naked here. Next week sees another YouthNet ol' timer move on to pastures new. This time it's Lesley Bourne, our Partnerships Director.
Read on to find out what Routemaster buses have got to do with volunteering, and remember if you've got any questions for Lesley before she goes, please add them as comments at the end.
In your time at YouthNet you must have seen do-it.org.uk grow enormously. Can you give us a picture of what do-it.org.uk and YouthNet was like when you first arrived?
I was the second member of staff to be added to the do-it team. I discovered that even though we had about 300 partners located all over the place from Northumberland to Cornwall, very few of them had really bought into the project, lots of them were terrified of using the PC equipment we'd issued them with and none of them really knew how to operate the database we'd developed. They were all also very sceptical about this new fangled internet thing as a method of recruitment. So we embarked upon a programme of "loving them into submission" by travelling the length and breadth of the country to start to talk do-it up and do some training.
And our office was situated right over the air vent of the Pizza Hut below – we'd all get hungry at about 11 when they started cooking. You couldn't open the window in the summer either as the air coming in was warmer than the air inside – and more garlic scented...
And how about the volunteering sector as a whole?
Well it's more convinced of the power of the web now! People are still a bit uncertain about how much help to give volunteers who apply via the web and I think we've got more work to do in helping volunteers and partners get a positive and efficient experience via online brokerage. However, stats speak for themselves – web audience for volunteering is very diverse.
I think that the sector as a whole has become more "professional" in that there is now a growing recognition that volunteer managers need better support and training. There is a fine line though in creating a great environment for volunteers to flourish and developing a culture of bureaucracy - I think the sector is terribly risk averse these days which is a shame.
Young people's volunteering is also currently the focus of government attention which has been a mixed bag for YouthNet – it would be good to see funders and particularly the government taking a more holistic view of the sector and thinking about how to encourage all parts of the infrastructure to work collaboratively together and in a sustainable way.
Keeping more than 400 partner organisations happy must be a bit of a challenge – especially when they all have differing requirements. Have you got any tips on how to how to manage that?
Benign dictatorship! It is hard sometimes but can also be very enlightening – there are a surprising amount of similarities and needs across the various parts of the sector. Technically, it has been a very difficult project to keep all parties happy as people are in such different pleases with IT capability, kit etc. I'd say that a key part of our success has been in consulting widely and being as transparent as possible about what you do next and why. We have had to be tough sometimes, but reminding people of the end goal (i.e. volunteers needs) rather than their own organisations has also helped.
What's your best memory of working for YouthNet?
It's always heartening to see great feedback from partners and users when you get it right. I saw a quote from one of our Volunteer Centre partners recently that said that we had revolutionised the way they work and that we were indispensable.
And your worst/most frustrating?
I have the reputation of being the office Eyore, so I'm surprised you've allowed me room for this one – now where to begin.....
A perennial frustration is finding out that organisations are still saying "If only we had one place on the Internet where we could list/find out about volunteering". A nice big fat Marketing budget could help solve that one.
My favourite worst memory is probably also my funniest – YouthNet had a brief dalliance with an "e-bus" with the idea that we'd have this sleek, mobile PC offering. In reality, it was a temperamental old Routemaster bus that broke down with alarming regularity. We took it to an event in Manchester– it died at Warrington services before it had even got there, and we spent the rest of the day performing death defying feats in the blazing sun to keep the satellite dish running and fending off the local little darlings who spent their whole time surfing porn. The day ended with an AA man jump starting the bus and then us having to guide it offsite in the dark as the headlights had gone –happy days.
Where do you see volunteering heading in the next five to ten years?
I think volunteering still needs to get comfortable with the way that society has changed – no one has a job for life so it's unrealistic to expect a volunteer for life. We need to focus more on giving people a great experience so that they keep coming back rather than worrying that they might leave. Volunteering still needs to find a way to measure outputs and outcomes better so that we can steer funders away from the "bums on seats" funding formula. I also think that the education sector could still be a great place to engage young people in volunteering – even at a primary school age – I'd love to see some developments around this as part of the new interest in young volunteers.
If you had a blank slate (and unlimited funding!), what would you do with do-it.org.uk?
Banks of techies beavering away on V-Base so we could meet all our partners needs, huge investment into the do-it website with a radically different application system, personalisation, enhanced searching, overseas opportunities etc etc. Obviously we'd need a whole new wing for the massive partnerships team so they can offer enhanced account management, develop e-training, offer consultation etc. And the massive marketing budget to get us under the noses of the nation.
What will you be up to after you leave?
Moving the family to the hills of Wales where I will be indulging my self sufficiency passions with gardening, chickens, permaculture and bees. And finally getting a dog with a bit of luck – our cats are going to love it........
If you could sum up your time at YouthNet in three words, what would they be?
Change, change, change
Posted by Sam Thomas ( 8:48 AM ) Link to this post Comments[0]
Monday May 19, 2008
Why we need to champion volunteer youth leaders
The recent spate of teenage killings in London and the subsequent election of Boris Johnson as the capital’s mayor has brought the issue of providing out-of-school opportunities for young people to the forefront. Mayor Boris has already said he’s going to invest in weekend activities for young people in an effort to crush the blight of gangs and gang-culture.
It’s all very good offering money, but many of these activities are already provided by the voluntary sector. Indeed one of the standard cries of certain commentators in both the media and political arenas is “why aren’t they taking part in after school clubs?” before reeling off a long-list of activities they had access to when they were young.
The response, if you ask any of the charities who run these activities, is that they simply don’t have the number of adults willing to run these projects, especially outside of leafy-surburbs and market towns and villages. My own experience of running a youth group based in Handsworth, a struggling part of Birmingham, was that within weeks of realising there was something fun and engaging to do I had a weekly stream of new young people wanting to get involved. Yet with just me and one other adult volunteer we couldn’t reasonably take more than 15 of them.
I hated the fact I had to turn young people away; but the brutal truth was I couldn’t be expected to cater for all of them. I hated the fact that when I discovered one of them was only 9, I had to stop him coming because our minimum age was 10 (and why should I allow him in when there were 10 and 11 year olds who we were turning away?). I knew he’d be wandering the streets whilst his older brother was benefitting from the group.
Sat in the pub on Friday night, the group I was with got on to discussing being involved in youth groups. Of the six around the table, 4 or 5 had been involved in one group or another at some point whilst growing up; and pretty much all of them had had positive experiences.
What, however, was more interesting was the attitude towards the leaders who helped out. The nudge-nudge, wink-wink attitude about leaders, especially males, and them volunteering to work with young people. The inference being that anyone who took on these sorts of roles must have some sort of ulterior or underhand motive.
And yet, ask any of these organisations and they’ll tell you that engaged, motivated and high-calibre youth leaders (male and female) are like gold-dust. They are crying out for leaders not just to expand their services, but to keep them running at their current level. They are not just a fantastic asset for the organisation but brilliant role-models for the young people involved.
But we’re never going to make volunteering with young people attractive if those that do, even in the confides of pub banter, are being labelled in an extremely negative way. We make huge demands on volunteers who work with young people, we shouldn’t be adding to that by expecting them to defend themselves against those kinds of lurid accusations, even if they are said in jest.
The sector needs to do more to tackle this negative portrayal and present volunteering with young people in a positive way. Because not only is it becoming increasingly difficult to recruit into these roles, but more volunteer leaders are simply going to decide it’s more hassle than it’s worth.
And then eventually the only people left willing to volunteer to work with young people will be exactly the sort of people who probably shouldn’t.
Posted by Olly Benson ( 10:42 AM ) Link to this post Comments[1]
Friday May 02, 2008
People to people fundraising and web 2.0 - what does it mean for fundraisers?
I went to two conferences this week, both of with featured sessions on social networking and fundraising. The first was "Communicating Success" on Wednesday, which attracted a mixed bag of fundraisers and comms people, and the second took place yesterday afternoon and was purely focussed on "people to people" fundraising, social networking and web2.0.
Ted Hart, the US-based online fundraising guru was at both, and the yesterday's seminar was also the launch of his new book "People to People Fundraising – social networking and web 2.0 for charities".
Both were really useful, and helped to shed some light on what can sometimes seem like a bit of a rudderless mess down here in the fundraising world.
To grossly paraphrase the key points from both seminars (and I hope I'm not stealing anyone's thunder here):
- People to people fundraising online is just the same as offline – it's all about relationships and it's what fundraisers have been doing since the cows came home;
- The goal is "less fundraising, more inspiring";
- As things stand, charities aren't raising significant money from Facebook. There's a stack of data to back this up – Clint O'Brien from Care2 had some really interesting stats about the amounts most non-profits are generating from Facebook (eg. average donation per supporter on Facebook is $1.24). Having said that, Allan Benamer has some interesting stats on the Causes application – which has processed around $2 million in one year;
- Charities (and fundraisers) need to be better at "getting out of the way". Increasingly, donors want to share experiences with the charities they support – the more authentic, the better;
- This also presents huge challenges in terms of reporting impact. Look at www.kiva.org – a site that's extremely effective at putting you in contact with the people you're supporting;
- Organisational models need to change. Silo working won't work in this multi-disciplinary world, you need input from Marketing, Comms, Fundraising and Web teams.
For me, some of the key challenges facing fundraisers are:
- How do we build a business case for investing time and money in fundraising from social networks, especially when we know it's not a quick win financially (check out Frog Loop's Social ROI calculator for one take on this);
- Where does this sit within the organisation? If we work in silos, fundraising from social networks will never reach it's true potential;
- How can we make an individual's interaction with our charity as authentic as possible? And how can we "get out the way" when we really need to?
- How do we avoid (or at least remain mindful of) potentially asking our beneficiaries for money, given that they inhabit this web 2.0 world as well?
This final point is particularly pertinent for us here at YouthNet. As a purely online charity, separating the audience that needs and benefits from our content from those that can and want to support us is a challenge. The last thing we want to do is make anyone feel like they have to support us in return for finding the information they need on our sites – whether it's www.do-it.org.uk or www.TheSite.org.
Plenty of challenges there then. Anyone have any thoughts?
P.S. In answer to Peter Deitz's question "Is People to People fundraising dead, or just getting started?" – my two pennies worth is that we're just working it out. For me, the exciting thing is we're just working out what does and doesn't work, and where to focus our energies. So, it's a time for experimentation, openness and willingness to make some mistakes.
The question has opened up some interesting debate – check out the Justgiving blog for their view.Posted by Sam Thomas ( 9:04 AM ) Link to this post Comments[1]
Tuesday Apr 29, 2008
Which list would you rather be on?
Last weekend saw eager fundraisers all over the UK buying the Times on Sunday, with a view to schmoosing the UK's rich list and securing some major gifts. No surprises there – the number one entry (Lakshmi Patel and family) is worth £27,700 million, or 27,700,000,000 pounds written in its full glory. Obviously, a donation equal to a tiny fraction of this wealth would make a huge difference to pretty much any charity you care to mention, and no doubt Major Donor fundraisers are poring over the list as I type.
At the same time, The Independent ran an interesting alternative to the "Rich List" – with the slightly unimaginative title of the "Happy List". They selected their entries according to how well they excelled in the following areas: Mental well-being, Physical health, Philanthropy, Charity, Pleasure, Environment, Innovation, Volunteers/time givers, Community service, Entertainment .
I applaud the move away from the growing trend of using wealth as an indicator of happiness, although if I'm being picky I do find some of the choices slightly bewildering. Seeing the two lists together does pose the question – which one would you rather be on?
Perhaps the real winners are those that feature on both, for example Sir Tom Hunter, who is worth £1,050 million, has pledged to give £1 billion to charity and is quoted as saying "Philanthropy is the only motivator to continue making money".
Posted by Sam Thomas ( 3:44 PM ) Link to this post Comments[0]
Friday Apr 25, 2008
A Love-Hate Relationship: When Old Meets New
In this mini-series, we explore how old media covers new media issues. First up, we look at the Daily Mail who seem keen for us to see the internet as a highly dangerous and sinister environment whether it's health, money, sex, education, you name it - it's one bad place to be.
Here's some headlines from the last couple of years.
Internet addiction 'should be recognised as a clinical disorder
Internet addiction is a serious public health problem and should be officially recognised as a clinical disorder, a psychiatrist claims.
Sorry, you can't have the internet... you're over 70
After walking the Great Wall of China and making plans for a trip to Russia, Shirley Greening-Jackson thought signing up for a new internet ...
Jailed terrorists are using the internet to contact supporters...
Terror suspects held at one of Britain's most secure jails are secretly accessing the internet to contact ...
School's bizarre ploy to beat internet perverts - masking pupils...
A primary school has been accused of being alarmist for covering up the faces of pupils on its website – apparently to protect them from ...
Coroner launches probe into 'internet suicide cult' after SEVEN ...
A coroner yesterday launched an investigation into the link between the internet and young suicides - as an MP hit out at websites for ...
Menace of the internet sites urging teenagers to starve
Children surfing the internet are being targeted by thousands of ... not go far enough and called for the groups' web pages to be removed. ...
How one in four teenagers has met a stranger on the internet
Ninety per cent had access to the internet at home. But few of those interviewed said they use the Web to help with their homework or studies. ...
The internet is destroying the world as we know it
For those unfamiliar with such terms, Web 2.0 is the name given by the computer industry to the "second generation" of the internet that has now been made ...
How the web stole our children: Chilling report reveals under-16s...
"Rob and I are at our wits' end on how to stop Daniel using the internet as much as ... Millions are left to surf the web on their own, with six out of ten ...
Sex pills drive rise in illegal internet chemists
Britain is now the second-largest host of unlicensed internet chemists ... said the web boom was worth at least £2 billion annually for six ...
Internet credit card fraud 'up to £500m a year'
UK credit card and debit card fraud on the internet is much greater than ... Earlier this month a report by web security company Symantec revealed that bank ...
Entwistle 'trawled internet for escort girls'
Neil Entwistle tried to find women through internet escort services, police sources revealed last night.
The classroom 'cancer risk' of wi-fi internet
Britain's top health watchdog has called for an inquiry into the use of wireless Internet networks in schools because of concerns they could ...
The world of real party animals: The internet gatecrashers who ...
Not if more recent internet postings are anything to by: "Yeahh it ... for the characters, and web-only mini episodes have been screened. ...
I bought my baby on the internet
You know how it is with shopping on the internet - the sheer ... Desperate to become a mother, she spent night after night surfing the web. ...
Google is watching you! The internet colossus is amassing an...
Virtual Global Taskforce Internet Safety .... Under this Big Brother-ish concept, the details of every web search we launch and every e-mail ...
YouTube massacre: Schoolboy gunman posts threat on the internet...
The internet video phenomenon: Giving killers a voice in the world of ... Eric Harris, and the same track was on Auvinen's web posting. ...
Downloads of Net porn hit record high
Yesterday, the Internet Watch Foundation, the online child abuse watchdog, warned the popularity of Web porn is leading more people into ...
Web will transport two million Brits to their Oz convict cousins...
Virtual Global Taskforce Internet Safety ... Web will transport two million Brits to their Oz convict cousins ...
Madeleine's parents subjected to 'spiteful' internet hate campaign...
The parents of Madeleine McCann have become the subject of a hate campaign on the internet.
School's bizarre ploy to beat internet perverts - masking pupils...
Virtual Global Taskforce Internet Safety .... but putting children's pictures on the web in any context these days has to be thought through ...
Grandfather builds gun-toting robot from Internet and kills...
A grandfather who wanted to end his life built himself a gun-toting robot with plans downloaded from the Internet and used it to kill ...
Probe launched after air stewardess performs topless mid-air...
The video was leaked onto the internet by members of the French crew and has sparked a major probe at several European airlines to discover ...
With all that danger, they have their own online safety guide:
Internet safety for you and your family
How can you keep you and your family safe online? Follow our guide.
But at least there are funny curiosities as well:
The piano-playing cat who caused an internet sensation
The latest star to shoot out of YouTube knows the benefit of practice to make you purrfect.
And finally, at least it's not all doom and gloom. There was one upbeat story involving the internet:
Queen becomes instant internet sensation after launching royal...
The Queen's YouTube channel has become a surprise internet hit, with almost 400000 people watching it in its first two days.
Tuesday Apr 22, 2008
The curtain falls
The world is getting larger...
The internet is a wonderful invention and I'm not just saying that because it pays my wage - honestly. The idea of a global communication system allowing for the transfer of knowledge, experience, information and ideas is tremendously exciting. It's hard not to argue that it's been the biggest step forward for humanity for as long as anyone can remember. One thing I've always found most compelling is that sense that national and regional boundaries are no longer the barriers they were. Language is still the same problem it ever was but at least I don't have to actually travel to Japan if I'm looking for a limited edition release of the latest series of Gundam – it's all available at the touch of a button. I can speak to someone in the centre of Basra about their situation at the moment. I can get involved with distributing videos about the solidarity movement in Guatemala. Discussion is unbound, distribution is cheap and anything and everything is available (for good or ill).
Except that's all bollocks now, isn't it? The idea of a global internet linking together the world is being consistently eroded. As the media industries finally try to use the internet suddenly walls are being erected all across the web. As governments realise that the internet provides the opportunity to discuss and criticise anything (including their own policies) they are increasingly repressive in their actions to curtail usage.
TV over the internet is a growing industry. It's been common for about the last 5 years, mainly through pirated shows being streamed online for subscribers. What's changed has been the decision of television networks to try this out and the first thing they've done is to make sure it can only be seen by the people they want to see it.
On some level I can understand where they are coming from. If you're still selling the rights to LOST in Australia then you probably don't want them to watch it at ABC.com but the logic doesn't hold. If I had to wait to watch an episode on Sky One then maybe it would make sense yet I don't have to do that. I can go ahead and download whatever I want for free. It's a bit irritating and takes a while to download and it's not as good as being able to stream the show but in the end I'll get it.
So by restricting access from my country to free ad-supported videos online the television and film industry isn't helping to combat online piracy – it's encouraging it. To be honest I still don't quite understand what the main issue is – every ad I've ever seen advertised on a US show is for the same rubbish that gets sold here. It's not like mass produced corporate pap is only sold exclusively in the US (though they do it particularly well).
In the end it's a desperate need to hold on to outdated regional distribution contracts that is holding back the TV industry from ending pirating of TV shows. A proper centralised distribution model, with ABC or the BBC finding their own nation by nation advertisers would end this and it'd end most of the major trackers of television shows. If you can get a show quickly and easily legally, you don't go hunting eztv or mininova for the latest release.
But there's a more insidious and related change continuing to happen on the internet and it's driven by far more unsavoury individuals than short sighted media executives and greedy network heads. The restriction of information, debate and news throughout the internet continues to grow. In some cases it's evident and obvious, an extension of already restrictive practices. Turkey's short term ban on Youtube, lifted only when Google removed all the content the regime objected to, is just the latest expression of a restrictive government. Blocking Youtube sits alongside their persecution of gay rights groups, peace campaigners or novelists who dare to mention Turkey's history of genocide against its Armenian population. This isn't a huge surprise but recent moves by the UK government go almost as far.
The conviction of five Muslim men in 2007 for reading 'extremist' material on websites was absolutely one of the most abusive acts by a UK government in living memory (though the decision has thankfully now been reversed on appeal). It was as if Big Brother had finally arrived, egged on by baying politicians and right wing newspapers looking for any scapegoat they could find to justify (or create) their own fears.
Let's be very clear on this – on our discussion board there has been regular discussion of issues around terrorism and extremism. If I choose to Google some of the names and some of the postings by an extremist group then I won't get into trouble. That's because I'm white – the security services don't care what I'm looking at.
This case stands as an example of a government that has decided to restrict what information can be read and then decide to prosecute and persecute individuals based upon their race and religion. Like the other examples of restrictions on internet freedom this is another action that divides and restricts freedom online. And every step against freedom online is a step that encourages the very worst and knee-jerk reactions to events.
And finally the great example for governments across the world – a beacon for all who want to control what their population hears and sees. Enclosing around a sixth of the world's population the Golden Shield project and the other elements that make up the 'Great Firewall of China' stands as an example to all regimes that it is possible to control what your people see. It's something that other governments seem to envy rather than fight against, especially with the complicity of western corporations willing to sacrifice users to the Chinese security services to ensure their business. It's hard to imagine that the small freedoms granted by the IOC pressure will remain more than an hour after the Olympic closing ceremony.
It should be the place of government to ensure liberty and freedom not to take an active hand in measures that restrict these freedoms. We may not be arresting people for reading about domestic violence figures online or imprisoning bloggers for daring to talk about the situations they see in their own lives but we are on the same continuum, heading in the same direction. Any action to restrict access to the internet encourages restrictions on individual freedom. The decision of government to support attempts by the music industry to force ISPs to become policemen of the internet and ban people from going online is just one step in this direction.
What is developed to stop piracy can soon be turned to stop political movements. It should be the job of government and individuals across the world to strenuously protect the benefits of the internet. Democracy is built on free access to information to make decisions not on hearing only the permitted side of the story.
This curtain continues to fall still further – not made of iron this time but of bits, bytes, mistaken good intentions and cynical political measures. This digital curtain dawn closed by the greed of those desperately holding onto outdated business models and repressive regimes risks everything the internet could have been – a true global freedom of information.
Posted by Jim Valentine ( 9:50 AM ) Link to this post Comments[0]
Monday Apr 21, 2008
It's all about us
Recently I took part in a debate on E-Volunteerism about trends in the way Generation Y (those individuals born between 1981 and 1995) is volunteering and how volunteer-involving organisations can adapt to engage Generation Y. Part of the discussion looked at whether Gen Y volunteered more episodically and whether they were more self-focused in their approach to volunteering.
It is really easy to slip into a way of talking about Generation Y that attributes all kinds of characteristics to the way they volunteer, when what we’re actually talking about is the latest evolution in volunteering and not the latest generation of volunteers. This distinction is really important because it changes it from being a debate between those who actively involve Gen Y volunteers to a wider debate about how as a sector we change and adapt with the times.
Good examples that demonstrate this distinction are:
- As employment markets change, so do approaches to volunteering
- As digital technology changes working environments (or human activity generally), so it changes volunteering
- As charities and social movements change and grow, so do the opportunities to get involved
A debate about how best to involve young people from the standpoint of how the world around us (starting with your local community) is operating today, is more fruitful than simply head scratching about what young people are like today. To be clear, if you work to understand how the world around us is functioning today, you’ll better understand what young people are like in the present.
More episodic volunteering?
There is, perhaps, more episodic volunteering nowadays. But this is due to the more episodic career paths we have now on the one hand, and the digital technology which has fragmented the world around us on the other, allowing us to look beyond our local communities. I remember when I worked in Guatemala how struck I was by the commitment many young people had to their local volunteering roles such as health promoters, teachers or church groups. But part of this was due to the reality of volunteering in small rural communities – this link with the local community was not as strong in the larger, urban capital of Guatemala City.
Are volunteers nowadays more self-focused?
Are young people more self-focused than any other age group? I don't think so. Most people approach volunteering with a balance of personal and social motivations. For example, if a younger person is more likely to want to learn a skill and an older person is more likely to want to meet new people, these are both personal motivations. It doesn’t follow that either is necessarily any less likely to want to volunteer for a social motivation like being able to help others.
The phrase self-focused is quite ambiguous. Are we hinting at selfishness or do we mean self-interestedness? Both selfishness and enlightened self-interestedness is about looking after your own needs. The difference is whether you’re being mindful of the needs of others at the same time. Volunteering obviously fits in with the latter; it’s enlightened self-interest. It doesn’t really make sense to talk about people volunteering their time selfishly. As a result, it makes more sense to think about whether we really know how Gen Y express this need to help others (which can show us new ways of volunteering happening today), before we’re tempted to say whether they’re any more self-focused, self-interested or selfish than anyone else.
Not them and us, it's all about us
It seemed to be me that engaging in a them and us debate, missed the bigger picture. Them, the volunteers. Them, the young people. Them, the more self-focused. Them, the episodically committed. It's about us. Us, in a new working environment. Us, in a new way of communicating and sharing information. Us, wanting social change.
Sounds glib, but it really is all about us- all of us :-)
Friday Mar 28, 2008
"Seeing Mickey naked is never nice" - an interview with Dom Waghorn
April 2008 sees the departure of our longest serving member of staff – Digital Interactive Services Director, Dom Waghorn.
Before he goes we thought we'd sit down with him and hear all about what things were like in the "good old days", and where technology and the web might be heading. Read on for the results...
If you've got any questions for Dom, feel free to post them – just don't comment on his personal appearance.
Can you tell us what brought you to YouthNet?
It was in October 1998 and I'd just finished a stint working at the Guardian editing the Glastonbury website. I was looking round for contract web work and YouthNet were after someone to come in and develop a website for the Duke of Edinburgh's Award. In my head, I'd come in, build the site, get it live and move on. I've now been here over nine years.What was it like in the early days? There are some highly disturbing stories involving Mickey Mouse...
Seeing Mickey naked is never nice. YouthNet's early office was a back room in the Disney HQ in Kensington. It was also used by Disney's entertainers as a changing room. We then moved to Haymarket, Panton Street (off Leicester Square), Angel, and now Old Street. Each office has been bigger, nicer and brighter, which is obviously a positive progression but there's something alluring about dingy, divey work spaces. Someone once said that the Panton St office looked a bit like a student house, which I thought was a compliment – we were in touch with our audience... there was also a lot of Age of Empire play and Napster use, so the comparison definitely fits.
YouthNet must have changed a great deal since you've been here. What's been the biggest change and how do you think we've dealt with it?
When YouthNet was much smaller, we would try stuff out on a whim. Frankly, the risk was much lower (in terms of investment and audience numbers) so if it didn't go well, then it was hardly a disaster. Now we have (reasonably) rigorous project management processes and documentation. The technical infrastructure was also totally different. An air-conditioned comms room? As if. The servers sat, surrounded by fans in a corner of the office.
This change was inevitable: TheSite.org was getting 10k users a month, now it has 550k; there are 50+ people rather than a handful; the turnover is 10 times higher. You can't run an organisation this size without a bit of process. The risk though is the dynamic, try-shit-out attitude gets stifled and drowns in paperwork.
Some things haven't changed at all. YouthNet's people still really believe in the 'cause' bit, love the potential of online and like to have a drink and a laugh. And there has always been pretty good coffee at YouthNet, always.
What about the web? Sometimes it feels like things are changing at an exponential rate, do you think that'll continue?If you believe in Moore's Law, then yeah - more, rapid change in inevitable. The challenge, of course, is knowing which direction it will go. There are some reasonably safe bets. Mobile or portable access, for example is going to be massive but within this broad assumption, there are many questions about the type of technology, usability, appropriate services and cultural adoption across different regions. I also think we've just seen the tip of the iceberg when it comes to what is sometimes grandly called 'the democratisation of media'. Social media is in its infancy and it's going to be fascinating to see the impact this has in the next 5-10 years on mainstream media, marketing, advertising and the ways people connect with each other and companies. I'm not a blind evangelist for all of this – there are inevitably downsides and problems – but the change is unavoidable.
What do you think will be the biggest challenge facing YouthNet in the next few years?
Dealing with the rapid change mentioned above. It's also a real opportunity. YouthNet's target audience is the highest adopter of new technology of all age groups. As the internet expands on to multiple platforms, and becomes ever more embedded into every day life, how does YouthNet prioritise and develop in the most efficient and targeted ways? Keeping up is the challenge.
YouthNet's other key test is around positioning. For the past ten years, being an online charity was unusual and put YouthNet in a distinctive space. In ten years time, YouthNet's model with be the norm – so what instead will separate YouthNet out from the rest? (For me, the answer may be in what has always been YouthNet's key asset - its trusted content).
What's been the best thing that's happened at YouthNet since you've been here?
Getting picked on by the Daily Mail is always an indication you are on the right track and that has happened a few times. But the real 'wow' thing about YouthNet's work is the impact it has on its user base. Every week, our editorial team circulate a few comments from users who have used our services and this is really the point. This is one from a user of askTheSite:
"The adviser really picked up on my feelings and the situation. I did give a very detailed question however every part of my feelings was addressed and I felt as though the person was in front of me talking. I cried because I felt as though someone for once understood me on such a difficult situation that I am going through. They weren't being judgemental which I felt was really positive because sometimes that is the huge worry when you have a problem and feel as though you are causing pain to others and that you are to blame. Thank you very much and I will continuously reflect on the answer throughout my situation."And the worst?
What annoys me and others at YouthNet is the frustration of not being able to do all the things we want to do. Our sites have so much potential and we've really only touched the surface when it comes to audience size and engagement. For example, both do-it and TheSite.org would benefit massively from higher levels of personalisation – but we don't always have the developer time available.
What are you off to do then?
Later in the year I'm going to go and drink good quality coffee and Sauvignon Blanc in the New Zealand sunshine. Until then, I'm consulting on content development and social media at digital agency Syzygy.Posted by Sam Thomas ( 1:08 PM ) Link to this post Comments[3]
Tuesday Mar 18, 2008
Volunteering - now and in the future
We ran a few presentations this morning on all things volunteering.
First up was Sarah, our very own Research Manager, who presented some top line findings from our Volunteer Satisfaction Survey (we'll get that up here shortly). The survey was completed by more than 2,200 volunteers on do-it.org.uk, and there are some really juicy stats in there.
Sarah was followed by Joe Gordon, one of the Commissioners for England Volunteering Development Council's "Future of Volunteering" Commission. As well as having one of the most confusing intros ever, Joe talked through his role in producing the Manifesto for Change, as well as some of his observations on the six recommendations outlined in the report.
Joe then passed the baton on to Fiona, YouthNet's Chief Executive, who outlined the Government's response to the Manifesto for Change, before talking through some of our priorities over the next 12 months or so.
We then had time for a quick but lively Q&A session, hosted by one of our Trustees, Aesha Zafar.
Here are the slides and keep your eyes peeled for the Volunteer Satisfaction Survey report...
Posted by Sam Thomas ( 5:18 PM ) Link to this post Comments[0]
Tuesday Mar 04, 2008
Get your thinking hats on
As I’ve mentioned before, the voluntary sector is facing more and more competition from the private sector to deliver innovative solutions to complex social issues.
This calls for a spirit of collaboration and openness, between charities, sectors and disciplines (and, of course, some extra cash never hurts…). A couple of examples of ways to encourage and facilitate this collaboration have come to light recently.
The first is the Innovation Exchange, which aims to “improve the relationships between third sector practitioners, public service commissioners, social investors and policy makers.” The Exchange has already attracted a pretty heavyweight list of contributors and should spark off some interesting debate.
The second is the Social Innovation Camp, which takes place between 4th and 6th April. Their website poses the slightly scary question:
“What happens when you get a bunch of software developers and social innovators together, give them a set of social problems and only 48 hours to solve them?”
Answers on a postcard please.
It’ll be interesting to see what projects and collaborations fall out of these initiatives – it’s also great to see more of a unified approach to tackling social issues.
Posted by Sam Thomas ( 10:33 AM ) Link to this post Comments[4]
Friday Feb 29, 2008
Elevator pitches, stats and stories
As fundraisers we get tied up all the time about key messages, and here at YouthNet we're no exception. We've worked quite hard to try and succinctly articulate what we do – something that's harder than you think when you look at the broad scope of www.do-it.org.uk and www.TheSite.org.
Anyway, seeing Joe Saxton talk about the "21st Century Donor" (check out the free report here) at the CHASE conference this week got me thinking about the key messages fundraisers use when asking for money.
One of the things he pointed out was that humans are completely irrational, and many of the decisions we make are linked to an emotional response, rather than hard facts. This is backed up by research – the example Joe gave described how when faced with the choice of donating to save one specific child, or a number of children, many people would choose the individual. As he explained, this is linked to "learned helplessness" – something many of us feel at the moment with regard to climate change. We know it's a massive issue, but it's just too big for us to tackle as individuals.
Everyone knows that stories tug the heartstrings and make people donate, not stats. The oldest fundraising cliché in the book is that "people give to people" – another example of irrational, emotional behaviour driving donations.
This raises a really important conflict for fundraisers – we know that we need emotional stories to demonstrate the need for funding, but we also know that we need to be clearly accountable (which in most people's eyes means stats, spreadsheets and piecharts).
Sometimes we don't get the balance right. So, we end up blurring the two together whilst we're asking for money, or we end up overloading people with dry stats. Or, at the other end of the spectrum, we think that stories, rather than stats, will suffice when it comes to being accountable.
I think this may be the root of some of the discomfort fundraiser's feel about being transparent and accountable. We're used to telling emotional stories, and donors want to hear them – but, as Joe said, no one wants to feel like a charity has made a mug out of them.
So what's the solution? I guess being completely clear about what we're doing. If we're asking for money to tackle a clear need, be emotive, but if we're trying to demonstrate the impact, maybe cold, hard stats are the way forward.
By the way, here's our "elevator pitch" – what do you think?
"YouthNet exists to support 16-24 year olds in every aspect of their lives. Whether it's emergency help in times of crisis, support with everyday issues, or getting involved in their local communities, YouthNet is always there for them. Twelve years ago, we were the first charity to recognise the potential of the internet and today we are still known for our pioneering approach."Posted by Sam Thomas ( 9:48 AM ) Link to this post Comments[2]
Wednesday Feb 20, 2008
Brokers make hay whilst the sun shines
Those of you involved in volunteering, in particular employee volunteering, can't have failed to notice the increase in brokers and consultants (I'll call them brokers for the purposes of this post) over the past few years. I have – in particular at conferences and seminars about employee volunteering, for example.
A few years ago, it seemed like it was just us fundraisers scrolling through the delegate lists looking for companies that might be potential donors, with the odd broker scattered round here or there. Now the delegate lists feature increasing numbers of them, and I think reactions to them in both the corporate and voluntary sectors are pretty interesting.
For starters, companies seem to be much happier dealing with brokers than they are dealing directly with charities. I know that's a generalisation, but it makes sense – after all, I don't know of many CSR Managers who enjoy being mobbed by fundraisers eyeing up their community investment budget.
I think this also stems from a disconnect between the corporate and charity sectors – in terms of both language and culture. Whether this disconnect is real or not doesn't really matter. If it's perceived, it's there.
It's this disconnect that brokers and consultants look to bridge.
"It's OK" they say to bewildered companies. "I'll guide you though the maze that is the voluntary sector. I'll use the phrases and words that you know and love, and I'll take some of those tough decisions for you."
"And the invoice is in the post."
Of course there's nothing wrong with consultants and brokers charging for their services. Most of them have great knowledge and expertise of both the corporate and voluntary sectors, and they run a slick, professional ship.
What's frustrating is that when charities seek to generate income through providing services to a company, they're often met with "why should we have to pay for that? You're a charity aren't you?"
On those occasions, I'm sure if we re-branded as a consultancy and went back with the same service, those objections wouldn't exist.
I'm not sure why that happens – I suspect it's related to the perceived balance of power in a "traditional" fundraising relationship – eg. "I have some money to give", rather than "I have a need which charity X can solve".
I've got some questions around this new(ish) company - broker - charity power structure - starting with:
If it's OK for a broker to charge a company for sourcing voluntary sector partnerships, is it OK for a charity to charge a company in a similar way for services it provides? (and I don't mean at a discounted, "charity" rate).
If the consultants & brokers are paid by the company out of their CSR budget, shouldn't they be as transparent about how much they pay the brokers as they are about the donations they make to charity?
I guess the crux of this post is where does the power lie in the company – broker – charity relationship?
And why are companies more willing to pay brokers and consultants than charities when it comes to delivering services?
Posted by Sam Thomas ( 5:15 PM ) Link to this post Comments[0]
Friday Feb 15, 2008
Life to the Max
When Max Gogarty, 19, set out on his blogging adventure in The Guardian travel section whether or not at the behest of a parent, it's doubtful he expected to be greeted by such a torrent of commenting. After 475 comments were notched up on Max's blogging entrance of all blogging entrances, The Guardian had had enough and pulled the plug on the commentators.
Today, they axed the accompanying photo of Max Gogetter. Andy Pietrasik, The Guardian's Travel Editor, posted his response:
"So, Max is 19 and off on his own for the first time to travel around India and Thailand. You can bet he's feeling a lot older and more worldly-wise this morning.
I take on board many of the criticisms that you levelled at me and Max yesterday, and can see where they came from."
Meanwhile, on TheSite.org it made us think of our own travel section and this gem, a rant from a few years ago by Tom Allebone-Webb who had another take on the joys of setting out into the big wide world. It's a great antidote to the head of steam that Max's writing has helped build up amongst the Guardian readership.
"What's that? You've been "travelling"? Oooh, how pleasant. Got lots of exciting photos of you bungee jumping, you with a snake, you getting pissed up in a sarong? Really? I'd love to see - but wait, haven't I seen these before?
Of course I fucking have, everyone has. You go away to your middle-class Ibizas (generally somewhere in South East Asia), have your yearlong holidays and do exactly the same things as everybody else. You spend ages "finding yourself" only to realise you're exactly like every other numpty who ever went travelling. Then you come back, feeling all enlightened and insist upon regaling everyone with stories of your daring exploits going shopping in a local market or on a brief guided tour around a little bit of jungle. I'm sorry Indiana, I think you may have mistaken me for someone who cares."
It takes all sorts. There's room for everyone in our view, whether you're Max, Tom or whoever, we want to hear from you. You can read other young people's blogs on their experiences volunteering overseas on do-it.org.uk.
Posted by Patrick Daniels ( 4:10 PM ) Link to this post Comments[0]
Wednesday Feb 13, 2008
Recruitment in a digital world
How do you recruit in the digital age?
Youth media consultancy/training company/friends of YouthNet 'MediaSnackers' have posted a recruitment video on YouTube which makes a call for new training staff. It's innovative and a great use of the medium - and is posted below for you to see.
It should also work: what MediaSnackers want is people who are totally in touch with emerging media and online tools - those frightened off by this kind of recruitment device are already effectively deselecting themselves. Also, potential candidates will be partly judged on how creatively they respond to the advert, using video or other digital mechanisms to apply. As a way of separating out the properly keen from the can't be arsed, it is an excellent approach.
Unrelated note: the Guardian tech podcast this week covers NGOs, charities and not-for-profits and chats to star charity-new-media evangelist Beth Canter. It's an interesting enough show, but I can't help but note a slight whiff of condescension, that because it's not commercial it's somehow not 'proper'.
Posted by Dom Waghorn ( 2:23 PM ) Link to this post Comments[2]
Tuesday Feb 05, 2008
Using Facebook to communicate with volunteers
I went to the last meet up of the Charity Web Forum on Monday and took part in a discussion about using social networking tools to communicate with volunteers.
I think a lot of the discussion of social networking is often in a marketing context where the focus is on how social networking online can be harnessed to increase the reach of a project, campaign or organisation. However, I think one the most valuable ways in which a website like Facebook can help is by building community amongst already established groups or networks by setting up closed or secret groups.
From our standpoint the big attraction of Facebook was that most of our volunteers and project members were already there. A hurdle many online communities fall at when trying to reflect already existing networks is that not everyone migrates to the new place, splitting your community between those there and those not.
In a practical group communication management sense, I think Facebook has made a huge difference. In particular, this has been felt most in what I call more vertical forms of communication, e.g. where you need to get a newsletter out to a group, an invite to an event and track responses, etc. However, I think the jury is really still out on the more horizontal kind of communication, i.e. where everyone gets to talk and 'see' everyone. A lot of horizontal communications, such as group members contacting each other independently, is below the radar. This isn't a bad thing- but it can make it harder to gauge your community's activity.
Obviously the potential is huge for building community once you've got everyone together online in the same place on a website they may well be visiting regularly. However, whether your community is communicating to each other as much as it could is certainly debatable in most cases. For example, discussion boards and link sharing are consistently underused across groups on Facebook. Why so when the potential is so great?
- A big part of this is the lack of functionality (searching or tagging your info in your Facebook group is terrible or non-existant).
- Another part of this is that there's no get out clause- you can't back up your group or export your data easily.
- Finally, it's crucial to be continuing to include the non-Facebookers in your group- which can become more complex, the more you find yourself wedded to the Facebook platform.
For Facebook development of groups has hardly been a priority- but arguably it's one of their greatest success stories. Here's to hoping Facebook start getting a bit more socially aware :-) Posted by Patrick Daniels ( 12:54 PM ) Link to this post Comments[1]
Thursday Jan 31, 2008
Big Mac with a diploma to go
Monday's news that McDonalds (as well as FlyBe and Network Rail) have been given awarding body status by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority was met with a fairly predictable initial response.
The day after, The Independent reported that teachers were "furious", as well as featuring a slightly patronising comment piece (a quick summary: vocational qualifications are jolly good, as long as they don't really count for much).
However, now everyone's had the chance to calm down a bit there are some signs of growing support (see here and here). Quite right too I say.
Before anyone blows their lid about McDonalds rivalling the beloved institution that they studied in, they should be sure that in another breath they don't complain about the lack of basic numeracy skills in the UK.
Equally, why is it that when you're going for your first job, everyone talks about the value of "life experience", but then kicks up a fuss when you quantify and accredit that experience? In terms of the A-Level that McDonalds are offering, let's get some perspective – it's an A-Level in Shift Management, not English Lit.
I'd have thought that McDonalds would be a useful place to study shift management, as it's an integral part of their business. As Mr Burns (no, not the one from the Simpsons) points out, this could also transfer very easily into a career in the NHS, for example.
The same applies to volunteering – it won't be long before you can gain nationally recognised qualifications through voluntary work, and why not? Rather than being a footnote at the end of your CV, the skills and experience you've gained in the "real world" will get the accreditation they deserve.
Posted by Sam Thomas ( 10:01 AM ) Link to this post Comments[0]
Tuesday Jan 22, 2008
We love Jamie Oliver
Well, we love what he's doing with young people, anyway.
TheSite.org has interviewed a young guy called Daryl about his brilliant experience apprenticing at Jamie Oliver's restaurant Fifteen.
Posted by Dom Waghorn ( 5:24 PM ) Link to this post Comments[0]
Can CSR ride out the storm?
The Economist published some interesting research on CSR last week that suggests that "doing well by doing good" is now firmly embedded in business executive's list of priorities. More than 50% of respondents to their survey said that CSR was a "high" or "very high" priority for their business now, compared to 34% three years ago.
As the