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
Friday Dec 14, 2007
Fancy a job?
Here’s a blatant plug – we’re looking for an events assistant to join our fundraising team here at YouthNet. It’s a six month role, helping us out with our million for a million ball, which takes place in May.
You can read more about the Ball here, and more about the role here.
So who are we looking for? An energetic, excellent communicator with strong organisational and administration skills - ideally you’d also have an interest in fundraising and events, as well as our cause.
Posted by Sam Thomas ( 4:33 PM ) Link to this post Comments[0]
Friday Dec 07, 2007
Do as we say, not as we do.
So was anyone really surprised by The Guardian's news that banks in the UK have been exploiting charity law to generate "billions of pounds in funds through complex financial deals that use supposedly charitable trusts which are not donating a penny to good causes"? Is it a measure of just how weary we are with banks that this story hasn't created more of a fuss?
I'm slightly ashamed to admit that my initial reaction was an apathetic shrug of the shoulders. If ever there was a sector that seems incapable of moving beyond pure self-interest, it's the high street banks, and it comes as no surprise that they've found another way to generate more profit – regardless of whose name, or cause, they use.
The Guardian gives the example of Northern Rock, who has raised £71 billion – that's right, £71 BILLION – though a trust called Granite. In their promotional literature, they tell potential investors that "any profits ... will be paid for the benefit of the Down's Syndrome North East Association (UK) and for other charitable purposes." Of course, Down's Syndrome North East have seen nothing of this, and apparently they weren't even informed about it.
Best of all, when contacted by The Guardian about it, Northern Rock apologised to the charity for what it described as an "oversight".
The more I read I about this, the angrier I get. I've wittered on about transparency and how both the private and voluntary sectors need to improve on this before, so I'm not going to do it again now. Other than to say how patronising it can be to hear from the private sector that we need to follow their business models, use their parameters to measure impact and return on investment and all the other words we now use – then find out that this kind of thing has happened again in the private sector.
Sometimes it feels like there are two completely separate rules for the private and voluntary sectors – and the one labelled "integrity" is consistently thrown out in the drive for profits (and I'm sure any proper "business men" reading that will be rolling their eyes and chuckling at the naivety of that statement).
Will these banks suffer a downturn in profits as a result of their lack of transparency (some might say bare faced lying)? I doubt it. When poorly administered charities are exposed there's often a direct, negative impact on their "business" – they get fewer donations.
What's the equivalent with the banks? I suspect that this situation is "OK" because the banks are generating more profit for themselves and their investors, so they're hardly likely to kick up a fuss.
What strikes me the most with this kind of story, is the overwhelming sense of being completely powerless to do anything about what has happened. It's like being a kid at school, and finding out that the school bully is actually the son of the Headmaster, and best mates with all the teachers.
Posted by Sam Thomas ( 12:00 PM ) Link to this post Comments[0]