In terms of the vision - well, perhaps a more realistic one would have been "Reduce cruelty to children by 50% within x years." Implication: it's fine for there to be a certain 'base level' of cruelty to children, because the truth is we'll never stop that. The only ethically acceptable *vision* is for there to be no cruelty to children, anywhere, ever. No-one ever said visions had to be realistic (and this is Little Miss Cynical saying this). The route map for achieving the vision, however, should be.

This is a rewritten post after I lost the first one halfway through because the link to NSPCC's annual report doesn't open in a new window (HINT HINT Adam). Which is very fortunate for readers, because the lost post was far longer. So you're getting off lightly, because it's probably about 24 hours since I read the NSPCC report. It was so uninspiring that a) I can't remember a single word of it to comment on it properly (and I work for a youth charity so have a specific interest in the issues) and b) can't be bothered to re-read it, even if it did provide some fantastic LMC-rant material (now that's serious ...)

-----------------------------------------------

... nearly Vlad the Impaler

I'm familiar with the starfish story.
Which is why I mentioned making things better or easier for one person at a time.
Can make all the difference in the world to that life.
Then go on to the next one and so on.

We need idealistic goals. Many have been achieved over the last 300 years - votes for women, free education, abolition of slavery, England winning a World Cup, and so on.
Idealistic goals at the time perhaps, but people worked at it and achieved results.
One step at a time.

Charities might not solve all the problems of the world in the next 100 years but I'd trust them to make the world a better place far more than governments will.
Might even save that damn cheerleader. :)

Indeed, as Catman says, we at IG HQ do have an aspirational aim. We also have a detailed plan which shows how we will achieve it. The point I was making in this blog entry was that there is a disjuncture at the NSPCC between the aspiration and the plan of action: the charity doesn't seem to have a way of achieving its stated goal. It is this discrepancy which I worries me. 

In other words, I agree with Conor and mikemuses: fundraisers ought to be working to put themselves out of a job (in the end) - and a part of that means keeping track of all the good work their charity is doing. At the moment, I don't think the NSPCC is doing this. 

Adam, Intelligent Giving

PS - Mikemuses, I'm not sure I like the ecological implications of all that starfish-throwing. Wouldn't it disrupt the marine ecosystem? 

I can think of may things I would rather do now than trawl through your submission to the charity commission, although I'm sure that they may be one of two charity lawyers who would find intersting.

The quote I posted came from your donate page so in a sense you are linking a completely aspirational aim with a donation given to IG. Sounds like NSPCC territory to me.

Catman

Just a quick reply for now, since it's late and I should be watching TV: we have a very detailed plan regarding how we're going to save the world. Read it here. It's clear about - amongst other things - how we propose to make charities more effective, and how in so doing, the world will become a better place.

The NSPCC has no such plan - so far as I know - detailing how they're going to end cruelty to children. 

Adam, Intelligent Giving

"There are so many other deserving causes out there? So why choose us? Quite simply, because we're the only organization which promises to save the world."

Sound familiar Adam?

I have pondered NSPCC's strategy and while  it doesn't inspire me to seek employment with the organisation, it makes their fundraising very effective. The British public naturally favour childrens charities amongst other causes, but the simplified, consistent message across pretty much every media seems to get people to donate. This does back up some of the arguments espoused by fundraisers that tranparency and accountability aren't really a burning issue with the public, but something dreamt up by a New Labour think tank.

Catman

I agree with Conor about working to put ourselves out of a job.  Although I suspect if CRUK find a cure-all for cancer tomorrow, they'll change their aims to providing the cure to everyone.

As for dreaming the impossible dream.  I like the starfish story:  http://www.wholelifecoach.com/starfish.shtml

 but since we're using your money to save the starfish, we appreciate you'd probably like us to count as we go.

Martin, of course they can make a big song and dance about it. They just have to be sensitive in the way they do it. We need to give our donors hope that we are going some way to reaching that lofty goal. So tell us that you hired 20 more staff to provide services, you answered more calls through Childline (ie less kids were left on hold) and that awareness of the service was up but maybe you got less calls (demonstrating that you have had success with your other services).

Essentially we should all be working ourselves out of a job. Thats the reality. Is it going to happen? Probably not. But if we dont't aim for that then we are in the wrong jobs. Of course as fundraisers we like big numbers, "we serve 500,000 people" so saying "we serve 25,000" isnt as appealing. Or is it?

I think it is, you want to say 10 years ago we had to serve 500,000 now we only need to serve 25,000, but we need your help now to make sure we can help these people.

Im not being idealistic here (you are thinking that's exactly what I am being), but we need to give hope and talk about success

Much easier, for those who have seen the TV show 'Heroes' is simply to save the cheerleader and therefore save the world. :)

Seriously, lofty visions of a better world are fine. Unachieveable perhaps, but one way to set a course for the charity to follow.
What charities do seem to be good at is at the individual level. Making things better or easier for one person at a time.

If you want to move a mountain, simplest way is to start by moving a pebble. Do it enough times and the mountain is moved.

The NSPCC have made some impact over the years, what with making people aware that child cruelty still exists in this country. And very useful for some kids.
But due to the nature of what they do, can they make a big song and dance about exactly who has been helped and where?
Some of their results will be tangible. Some less so, but perhaps with wider impact.

Perhaps over the next few years, with help from certain organisations (IG?) breathing down their necks, they will become more transparent.

Martin
(who isn't out to save the cheerleader)